# Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art



## pemerton (May 28, 2014)

The thread title is taken from Moldvay Basic (p B60). I think Moldvay gives some good advice. Here is one of my favourite bits:

*"That's not in the rules!"* The players will often surprise the DM by doing the unexpected. . .

One quick way for a DM to decide whether a solution will work is by imagining the situation, and then choosing percentage chances for different possibilities. For example, suppose the DM is running a combat that is taking place on a ledge next to an unexplored chasm. One player suddenly decides that his character has no chance to survive combat. The player announces "My character want to jump into the chasm to excape!" There may be a chance that he will fall to a nearby ledge or land in a pool of water at the bottom of the chasm. The DM thinks about the dungeon for a minute, and remembers that an underground river flows through some of the lower dungeon levels, so there _might_ be a pool below. Even so, the character will fall 60', and a normal fall will do 1d6 hp of damage per 10' fallen. This character has only 7 hp, and seems likely to die even if the water cushions his landing and reduces the damage. However, there should always be a chance to do something nearly impossible. A player should have, at the very least, a saving throw or a state percentage chance of a miraculous occurrence saving the character. The DM answers: "Looking down into the chasm, your character can estimate that he has a 98% chance of dying, no saving throw, if he jumps. If you decide that your character jumps, roll percentage dice. A result of 99 or 00 will mean that your character lives, but any other result will mean that he will die in the attempt. Do you still want to jump?"​
What I like about this is that it recognises the priority of playing the game over the GM's pre-authored backstory. So more important than the question "Where does the underground river _really_ flow?" is the question "Is there something in the established backstory that can be drawn upon or manipulated to help the play of the game?"

That's not to say that it's perfect. Moldvay seems to suggest that the chance of success should be based on the ingame likelihoods - whereas I prefer an approach that uses saving throws or checks against externally-established DCs. These will make miraculous escapes more common in the game than they would be in real life, but that suits what I want out of the game. Gygax explains this in his discussion of saving throws (DMG pp 80-81):

Could a man chained to a rock . . . save himself from the blast of a red dragon's breath? Why not? . . . Imagine that the figure, at the last moment of course, manages to drop beneath the licking flames, or finds a crevice in which to shield his or her body, or succeeds in finding a way to be free of the fetters. Why not?​
Gygax doesn't set the percentage chance of a saving throw based on the "objective" ingame likelihood of a crevice, or of the chains breaking. The chance is set by the saving throw table.

Still, I think what Moldvay says is excellent advice and I think my GMing could have been better if I'd taken it to heart, and applied it, more seriously earlier on in my GMing career.

There are some bits of Moldvay's advice, though, that I once used to follow but now don't. You can see in the passage I already quoted that he frames the situation from the ingame point of view ("your character can estimate that he has a 98% chance of dying, no saving throw, if he jumps") although it gets a bit clunky when the PC apparently can see that he won't get a saving throw - an infelicitous running together of the ingame and the metagame.

Moldvay says a couple of things directly on the point of metagame knowledge (pp B60-61):

*"Your character doesn't know that."* A player should not allow his or her character to act on information that character has no way of knowing (for example, attacking an NPC because the NPC killed a previous character run by the player, even though the NPC and current character have never met). If te playrs get careless about this the DM should remind them. The DM may, in addition, forbid certain actions to the characters involved. . .

MONSTER HIT POINTS: The DM should _never_ reveal the hit points of the monsters. It is enough to tell the players how a monster reacts after a successful attack.​
I often tell my players how many hit points a monster has left. If an attack leaves it with 1 hp, or low single digit hp, then I like to taunt them. And as well as taunting value, information about hp remaining can also increase the pressure that the players feel. (In 4e you see this when the players succeed in a couple of big attacks, and express the concern that the monster _still_ is not bloodied!)

I think using metagame knowledge more generally can make for a fun game, for similar sorts of reasons: it helps generate emotionally engaging play. For instance, the scene where the new PC meets the NPC who killed the player's former PC will probably be more emotionally charged if the player takes that shared table experience into account in playing his/her new PC in the encounter.

Who else has thoughts on Moldvay, or Gygax, or other GM advice we've been offered over the years?


----------



## Nemio (May 28, 2014)

I will be following this topic closely since I'm a wannabe DM that's going to buy the new D&D edition to play this game with other newcomers for the very first time 



> Still, I think what Moldvay says is excellent advice and I think my GMing could have been better if I'd taken it to heart, and applied it, more seriously earlier on in my GMing career




Any examples of situations where you think you might have done better?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 28, 2014)

Yeah, the Moldvay Basic set was chock full of solid gaming advice.


----------



## Yora (May 28, 2014)

My approach is always asking "what would make the better story?" If something is a bit far fetched or goes completely against something I had planned but not revealed to the players yet, I try to imagine if the game would be cooler if I let the players run with it, or shot down the idea.

Which is why I love OSR games so much. I don't need to suspend the rules to do these things, but it's already the default assumption that you decide when the players have to roll and what.


----------



## Celebrim (May 28, 2014)

Well, I generally agree with Moldvay on all of that, and typically only depart from Gygax over the subject of how antagonistic the DM is to be with respect to the PCs and any advice that Gygax gives which comes from the mindset of running nightly games for an ever rotating large cast of players (the former possibly being a subcategory of the later).

The only area in the quoted rules that I disagree with Moldvay over is his ad hoc rules creation of miracles.  I generally dislike fudging the rules and doing anything ad hoc at all.  It's inconceivable to me that you'd introduce a chasm into play without as a condition of the chasms existence giving some thought to where it goes, it's physical dimensions, and what lies at the bottom.   Hence, the DM has put himself in a terrible situation of having to rule on the life and death of a player character with no fiction established.  Without a fiction being established, there is no way for the DM to fulfill his obligation to the player to be an unbiased neutral referee.  Although Moldvay is attempting to fulfill his obligation in this situation, I'm not a fan of how he does it or how he communicates.

First of all, a fall of 60' into sufficiently deep water is survivable if you enter feet first.  Falls into water are lethal generally beginning at around 150', or at a lower distance depending on how you enter.  This suggests to me that the damage from falling 60' into water (in BD&D terms) is not 6d6, but say 2d6 or even (as it would be in 3e) 1d6.  So the question becomes, what's the chance of falling into deep water?  With 7 hit points left, if the PC hits water (well) there is a strong chance of survival (possibly 100%) of at least the immediate hazards.  And even if we assume shallow water that reduces the damage from 6d6 to 5d6, that means the chance of survival falling into a shallow pool is about 1 in 1000, and onto rock about 1 in 50000. I see no reason to pick a single number - 2% - as the approximation of this.  Either figure out what the player lands on from the map, or randomly generate a result based on the possibilities implied by the map and then apply the rules accordingly.

Moldvay seems to be giving it as 2% based on not knowing whether there is water or not or perhaps even worse knowing that there isn't water but wanting to give the plan some chance of success.   However, he deliberately makes this chance of success tiny and then deliberately tells the player his plan is almost hopeless, reveals metagame information that the character could not possibly have, and all but tells the player not to act on his plan.   While some of that may be justified in the situation, particularly with a new player, that general approach is basically railroading.

Conversely, if Moldvay decides that there is a high likelihood that a deep slow moving river actually flows through the chasm (as opposed to knowing this when the chasm is established), and assigns a 98% chance of survival, and then communicates this metagame information that the character couldn't possibly have  to the panicking player he's all but telling the player to jump, and again deciding for himself what the story should be (presumably because he likes the story of the player jumping into the chasm, or wants to save the player).  Again, the DM is failing in his basic duties as a GM.  The players aren't really free to choose, and the GM is overruling their actions in a way that means that players aren't responsible for and can't claim their own actions.  They win because the GM gave them the win and the story they are creating is the one that is satisfactory to the GM.   And in general, I hate pulling numbers out of the air because they 'seem right'.  What does a 2% chance of life or death have to do with the rules anyway?  For that matter what does a 'saving throw' have to do with this situation?  If a saving throw has something to do with this situation, why can't and shouldn't a player receive a saving throw every time that they fall off something?  And if they don't receive such a saving throw purely because the DM has decided they don't in this situation need one, how is that not the DM choosing for himself what he wants to happen?

Moreover, quantifying the game situation in numeric terms is a direct violation of the principle behind not telling the player the hit points of a monster.  The whole point is for the DM to begin to transcend the game and immerse the players in the situation.  If your narration is liberally sprinkled with numbers and game rules references, what you are communicating is that this is a game and should be experienced as a game.  This in my opinion is a playing an RPG at a lower level of skill than experiencing the game as a story in an shared imaginative world where the rules exist only to arbitrate consequences for the characters of that world.  The skillful DM doesn't give a monsters hit points but instead narrates the reactions of the monster and consequences it has suffered - "bleeding profusely", "grieviously wounded", "panting and puffing", "whines in pain", etc. - because he's seeking to draw the players into the experience of imaginative play and at least partially out of a boardgaming/wargaming mindset that might otherwise dominate play.   Things like, "You have a 2% chance to survive" or "The monster has 14 hit points left" work contrary to that goal.

Basically, in my opinion the skillful DM creates the fiction according to the standards he sets for his world, and the rules according to the standards he sets for his game, and then he having done so largely subjugates himself to these things - concealing and laying down his absolute power - for the sake of the player's freedom of action.   Although the DM has the power and right to override his own rules and fictions, the wise DM applying the best techniques of game mastering does so only rarely.  To act otherwise is to be a tyrant and deprive the players of a chance to truly influence the game.


----------



## pemerton (May 28, 2014)

Nemio said:


> Any examples of situations where you think you might have done better?



It's hard to give specific examples out of context. But I think, especially when I used to GM Rolemaster, that there have been times when I've taken the ordinary action resolution mechanics too seriously as setting the limits of what is possible in the game. In RM this is ameliorated a little bit because it has open ended rolls (most things are resolved on d100, and a 96-100 allows rolling again and adding - over the years there were some memorable moments of double- and even triple-open-ended rolls which saved PCs from disaster). But sometimes it can have the effect of shutting down the game.

Part of the issue is one of fairness - if, most of the time, you resolve falling damage on d6 per 10' fallen, how come _this_ time this particular PC gets a % chance of surviving? I didn't use to have a good answer to that question, and so usen't to give the % chance. Whereas now I think I have a better grasp on how to handle some of these issues.

An interesting, and very strong, version of the Moldvay approach to "There's always a chance" (that's another heading that appears on p B60) is found in 13th Age: the players can _always_ declare that their PCs retreat and make it out alive, but the GM then has licence to respond by declaring a "campaign defeat" - one important goal that the players have is forfeited, going against them. In Moldvay's example, for instance, the player can always declare that his/her PC survives the drop by landing in the water, but the GM then gets to declare that while he recovers consciousness, the baddies get to do XYZ. (I'd think of it somewhat along the lines of when Aragorn goes over the cliff in the Two Towers movie.)

This is one way of handling the fairness issue.


----------



## Celebrim (May 28, 2014)

pemerton said:


> An interesting, and very strong, version of the Moldvay approach to "There's always a chance" (that's another heading that appears on p B60) is found in 13th Age: the players can _always_ declare that their PCs retreat and make it out alive, but the GM then has licence to respond by declaring a "campaign defeat" - one important goal that the players have is forfeited, going against them. In Moldvay's example, for instance, the player can always declare that his/her PC survives the drop by landing in the water, but the GM then gets to declare that while he recovers consciousness, the baddies get to do XYZ. (I'd think of it somewhat along the lines of when Aragorn goes over the cliff in the Two Towers movie.)




The big problem I have with this is that it is not unusual, especially in old school play, for the party to have but a single overriding goal - survive the dungeon.  Outside of that context many players do not care what happens in the fiction nor in my opinion has the DM any right to demand that they do start caring.  

What are you going to do, force the players to behave as if the lives of the orphans are meaningful to them?  It's not reasonable to expect that a player is going to be highly motivated to take moral responsibility for the actions of something they themselves see only as a playing piece in a game.  This general approach fails in the generic case because it makes assumptions about the motivations and aesthetic interests of the players.  In some cases there is an actual defeat I suppose (of a sort).  In other cases, players generally don't care what NPCs do to other NPCs, but instead treat it as background color to their story.  

The most common alignment I see in play is Chaotic Self-Interest, which is followed closely there after by Neutral Pragmatist.  The only campaign defeat that is meaningful in that context is the death/maiming of a PC.  Expecting players to view other goals with great concern is I think naïve, and even to the extent that some will, all I think you are doing is punishing players for having goals beyond killing things and taking their stuff and specifically punishing those with story goals more severely than those with less prosaic concerns.  If everyone is a thespian with shared dramatic goals, ok, fine.  However more likely you've got a thespian, a power gamer, a clown, a casual gamer, and a couple of players with an amalgamation of motives playing together.  I also suspect that this would encourage a lot of 'don't throw me in the briar patch' behavior, with stated goals being actually less important to the player than their unstated goals so as to avoid ever actually being thwarted. 

Beyond that, this approach once again amounts to railroading, with the GM deciding what story he'd actually prefer and then implementing it regardless of the rules or fiction.  What justification other than your preferences as an author do you have for causing something to occur during the 5 minutes that a PC is 'out of it', if 5 minutes taking a bath room break, binding wounds, polishing a sword, or taking 20 to search a chest for traps wouldn't have the same consequence?  You're no longer adequately sharing the story in my opinion.  The PC's now live in a world which is unreliable, unpredictable, unknowable, and changeable.  In such a situation, no choice can truly matter and the only thing that really matters is subtly influencing the master of the world.

Moreover, outside the context of a well established fiction, most 'campaign defeats' are probably rationalizations by the GM.  That is to say, unless the GM knew ahead of time exactly what resources were available to a foe, he could not meaningfully make the situation worse.  If you are constructing your fiction post hoc, if you have 'no myth', or if your challenge ratings are mostly being dictated by what the rules say a challenge should be like, you are not really going to follow through on 'In Encounter #62, the BBEG will be aided by 20 servants rather than 4, resulting in a high probability of defeat' because Encounter #62 doesn't exist yet in any concrete way.  Unless you've established rules that say event M occurs on Wallsday the 24th of Clement, and concretely know how to adjust the BBEG's time table based on each potential victory or defeat, you're just playing with smoke and mirrors.  The theoretical set back to the PC's interests is largely existing only in the mind of the GM, and IMO solely for the GM to rationalize his intervention in the situation to himself.   The players themselves are used to living in an unknowable world that spawns encounters according to the GM's whim, so they themselves are never going to know 'this is bad' compared to any standard.  

Now, there is nothing wrong with having smoke and mirrors and for that matter, it's not always bad to railroad.  But in my opinion artful dungeon mastering requires you consciously know what you are doing when you utilize these bags of tricks.  Obfuscating from yourself what you are doing via smoke and mirrors strikes me as a rather poor use of illusionism.

As a bit of an aside, Aragorn going over the cliff in the Two Towers movie was terrible story telling and is not the sort of thing you should implement in your games on purpose.  It's also in a gaming context illustrative of the problems with the approach I outlined above.  It's bad movie making because first it was redundant.  Aragorn falling off something and being semi-conscious happens multiple times in that movie alone, each with a slow motion pan to close up, and each with no sense that the hero is really in danger (especially the second or third time it happens).  

Secondly, it's bad story telling because it adds nothing to the story.  At no point do any of those scenes actually add anything to our understanding of the character or develop the story.  Aragorn continually falling down or getting separated from the group isn't symbolic of anything and isn't meant to reference anything. (Unlike for example, foreshadowing Boromir's moral fall might by doing the same thing in the first movie).  There is nothing artful here.  All they do is pad the story length out meaninglessly.  They go by without ever being referenced again.  The audience can almost see the mental workings of the writer, "Add some action here.  Maybe falling from a high place.  That's always exciting."   Ironically, all that padded action does is slow the pace of the story down and make it less exciting.

Thirdly, they are truly meaningless.  Nothing about the story changes because Aragorn goes over the cliff.  The same set of events still happen and still happen in basically the same way that they would have whether Aragorn took a time out or not.  No resources are gained or lost because of them.  Aragorn sacrifices nothing of meaning to him.  The Battle of Helm's Deep still plays out in the same way.   In the context of a post about 'campaign defeats', Aragorn going over the cliff is a quintessential example of how meaningless declaring a 'campaign defeat' that doesn't involve Aragorn's death actually is.   Likewise, it shows I think that declaring a 'campaign defeat' that doesn't in some way involve Aragorn's eventual futility - the Battle of Helm's Deep is lost, preventing Aragorn from stopping the sacking of Minas Tirith, one of his major campaign goals - and moreover Aragorn's player KNOWING somehow that if he hadn't fallen off that cliff he would have saved Minas Tirith (rather than the fall of Minas Tirith being DM fiat), is itself pretty meaningless. 

And all that assumes Aragorn's player deeply cares about anything other than Aragorn surviving the campaign, preferably while retaining Anduril and that sweet chainmail he got from Théoden.


----------



## Yora (May 28, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> The big problem I have with this is that it is not unusual, especially in old school play, for the party to have but a single overriding goal - survive the dungeon.  Outside of that context many players do not care what happens in the fiction nor in my opinion has the DM any right to demand that they do start caring.
> 
> What are you going to do, force the players to behave as if the lives of the orphans are meaningful to them?  It's not reasonable to expect that a player is going to be highly motivated to take moral responsibility for the actions of something they themselves see only as a playing piece in a game.  This general approach fails in the generic case because it makes assumptions about the motivations and aesthetic interests of the players.



And that's why I think dungeon crawling is a terrible way to play the game. If you have fun rolling battles, I won't stop anyone. But if you want to have meaningful development and interaction, you simply have to come to an agreement what the actual goals and priorities of the party are. Which really isn't a big deal. All you have to do is tell the players before they make their characters, that this will be a campaign about heroic knights, a band of ruthless mercenaries, a gang of pirates, or whatever, and if everyone is okay with that and willing to play along with this premise.
Almost all the time, it's a game between people who know and like each other, and get together to have fun. Asking the players to go along with a general concept isn't asking much, and they will almost certainly be happy to agree. And if they really don't like the premise, than they can come up with another one that everyone can agree on.
The situation where random strangers get together with random characters for a few hours of dungeon crawling is probably exceptionally rare and there really is no need to be a slave to some of the conventions this special style of playing requires.
Just ask the players what style they want the campaign to be, and if they don't have any preference (as players almost universaly do), just make something up yourself and ask them to play along.


----------



## Bawylie (May 28, 2014)

Yes, you're going to force your players to create characters that belong in the world. That's the game. People don't show up, fully formed & geared to go out of nowhere. Characters, with classes, ages, races, backgrounds, etc., should also have families, friends, rivals, romances, and all that. 

Sometimes, players what to use "Chaotic Neutral" or "practical" as an excuse to avoid RP altogether. Whatever you think of alignment, if the players aren't interested in RP, then they're not interested in setting or pursuing goals (for the most part). 

So the fine art of DM-ing starts in character creation. It starts with interviewing the player about the character and rejecting characters that don't fit into the world. "He comes from nowhere, has no family, and cares about nothing." That's not a playable character. It has no motivations nor ties to the setting. You have to lead the player into creating those ties. Because role playing a character is one of this game's biggest features and strengths. 

As a DM, you create a rich fictional world with adventure and intrigue. Your players must at least come up with a character with motivations, goals, desires, and some kind of history. 

A common pitfall is to have a player create a loner badass who lacks reasons to cooperate. But even the classic loner badasses have teams and support systems. Rooster Cogburn, Batman, Wolverine. Even alone Wolf and Cub has Cub (and a moving personal story). 

So if this is an art, part of that means drawing out what makes any PC a person and not merely a collection of stats on paper. 

(Unless your game is endless kick-in-the-door action, which is fine, but even that tends to have some dimension to it).


----------



## Celebrim (May 28, 2014)

Yora said:


> And that's why I think dungeon crawling is a terrible way to play the game.




And once again, we have a definition of what it means to be an artful dungeon master which is situational and limited.   Unless your definition of artful dungeon master takes in to account the many styles of player and the many different aesthetic goals that a group of players can bring to the table - narrative, self-expression, discovery, fellowship, challenge, sensation, etc. - then you have a definition that is merely self-serving and self-centered.  You are basically saying, "This is what works for me, but I can't vouch for whether anyone else likes it."  That's fine, but I'd like to think we could talk about, "Given any group of players, what can the artful dungeon master do to ensure everyone has a good time."



> If you have fun rolling battles, I won't stop anyone. But if you want to have meaningful development and interaction, you simply have to come to an agreement what the actual goals and priorities of the party are.




I disagree with the 'have'.  You certainly can have meaningful development and interaction by coming to an agreement about what the goals and priorities of the narration are to be, but that's hardly a prerequisite for having meaningful development and interaction.  It's just one path to the goal.



> Which really isn't a big deal. All you have to do is tell the players before they make their characters, that this will be a campaign about heroic knights, a band of ruthless mercenaries, a gang of pirates, or whatever, and if everyone is okay with that and willing to play along with this premise.




Which actually has nothing to do with the actual goals and priorities of play any more than "We are going to be delvers in an ancient dungeon" as a premise sets the goals and priorities of play.  There is no reason to believe that you've necessarily done anything but change the drapes by saying, "We'll be a gang of pirates on the high seas", and every sort of conflict or goal or interaction possible in "We'll be a gang of pirates on the high seas" is possible in, "We'll be delvers into a ruined dwarf city."



> Almost all the time, it's a game between people who know and like each other, and get together to have fun.




So?  That's hardly the point.  Even amongst a group of people who know and like each other, you'll have that player who is a power gamer, that other guy that loves amateur theatrics, that one players that just likes hanging out with friends, that other guy that sees every situation as an opportunity for mad cap hilarity, that one guy who just naturally gravitates to living out heroic fantasy, and that other guy who decompresses by being an amoral ruthless assassins with every imaginable vice.  Coming up with a theory that only serves the viewpoint of the guy who is 100% method actor is pretty useless in actual play.



> The situation where random strangers get together with random characters for a few hours of dungeon crawling is probably exceptionally rare and there really is no need to be a slave to some of the conventions this special style of playing requires.




I'm not even convinced you know what conventions are needed to run random characters for a few hours of dungeon crawling are.  I certainly didn't until I spent a summer running games for a random ever changing cast of players.  After that, I opened up the 1e DMG and saw things I'd never understood before.  And I certainly agree there is no need to be slave to the conventions that requires, because it implies that you aren't conscious of why you are doing things and have become hidebound.  But I'd equally argue that this is true of being slave to generic non-solutions like, "Have them fail forward." or "No myth" or a bunch of other overly simplistic rules people try to promote as 'the answer'. 

But that's hardly the point.  The point is that a theory of good DMing has to encompass both your home game with players you've been with for 30 years and who all have identical aesthetics of play, and that random group of 12 strangers at a Con or local gaming store.   You have to be able to understand what your constraints are, what the goals of your players are, and how you can meet each of those goals without sacrificing (as much as possible) the other considerations.   To the extent that at first you can't necessarily know what goals your players have (they might not even know themselves), as a first strategy I think it best to try to meet a mixture of common goals like challenge, narration, discovery, self-expression and so forth.  You can then pull the levers as you discover more what your players need, providing of course you even know what the levers are.


----------



## Celebrim (May 28, 2014)

Welcome to the boards, Bawylie.  Nice post.



Bawylie said:


> Yes, you're going to force your players to create characters that belong in the world. That's the game. People don't show up, fully formed & geared to go out of nowhere. Characters, with classes, ages, races, backgrounds, etc., should also have families, friends, rivals, romances, and all that.




It took me a while to learn that the GM has to be part of the character creation process.  I'm a big believer in the GM never running the PC, but I've learned from experience that he has to approve of the PC before letting it into play.

As an addendum to the quoted part above, the hard part isn't forcing players to create characters that belong in your fantasy world.  The real hard part is massaging the player's creativity until you can get characters that belong and can stay together, often despite conflicts in philosophies between the players that are starker in some ways than the conflicts between their characters.



> Sometimes, players what to use "Chaotic Neutral" or "practical" as an excuse to avoid RP altogether. Whatever you think of alignment, if the players aren't interested in RP, then they're not interested in setting or pursuing goals (for the most part).




One of my players has from the beginning signaled that he has no interest in moral conflicts or ethical challenges.  Not surprisingly, he just - with a bit of prompting - moved his character on the dial to Chaotic Evil.  I always find it amusing that players think that they are going to avoid RP in that manner. 



> So the fine art of DM-ing starts in character creation. It starts with interviewing the player about the character and rejecting characters that don't fit into the world. "He comes from nowhere, has no family, and cares about nothing." That's not a playable character. It has no motivations nor ties to the setting. You have to lead the player into creating those ties. Because role playing a character is one of this game's biggest features and strengths.




I think 'he comes from nowhere, has no family, and cares about nothing' is playable, it's just likely to be self-deception on the part of the player.   To a certain extent, I don't really care what your background is, so long as the character has a reason for risking life and limb to obtain something.  I learned that after trying to run a game where everyone had created a character with some form of crippling enochlophobia or misanthropy.  The only sort of character concept that really doesn't work is one with no reason to leave his house.  The character concept of, "He comes from nowhere, has no family, and cares about nothing.", could be a great concept if it finishes with something like, "And now something from his past is trying to kill him."  It's the motivations and desires that are most important here.  If needed, I can fill in the past.



> A common pitfall is to have a player create a loner badass who lacks reasons to cooperate.




We're mostly talking about skillful DMing, but there is such a thing as skillful playing as well.  For example, you can play the loner who always goes it alone, provided you wink and play out, "But this time, he find himself entangled with...", for whatever motive you wish to create.  In other words, there is an art to playing a character who clearly has a certain personality and still animate them in a way that it seems natural for them to go against their natural inclinations.  Stories are filled with this sort of thing where one character quite against his will finds himself in a partnership, and good RPers - working together - can create that sort of dance where each of them no how this is going to work out but each also knows that the needs of the story require dancing around that end.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 28, 2014)

One salient piece of advice from the 3e DMGII:


			
				DMG II said:
			
		

> Running a game can be an intimidating task that calls on a huge variety of unrelated skills: memory for rules, a head for numbers, imagination, verbal agility, and sensitivity to group moods. Most dauntingly, it requires the confidence to take center stage in front of a group--an act that terrifies many self-assured people. Anyone who does even a half-decent job of DMing should be congratulated just for trying to marshal these skills.



I think it's important because so many people on these boards are either very negative about individual DMs, or about the idea of a DM, or both.

This piece is an important reminder of two things. First, that DMing is a big job, it carries more authority and more importance than the roles of the other people at the table; "center stage" is inherently a tough place to be in. Second, that the DM does not always have to be perfect in order to be a DM.

A nice bit from the original DMG:


			
				3.5 DMG said:
			
		

> Do you cheat? The answer: The DM really _can't_ cheat. You're the umpire. and whatever you say goes. As such, it's certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or to keep things running smoothly.



DM cheating is a big deal. The section goes on to provide some other interesting thoughts on the subject, and notes that it's okay to hew strictly to the rules, or to bend them if you want. It then notes:


> Just as important an issue, however, is whether the players realize that you bend the rules. Even if you decide that sometimes it's okay to fudge a little to let the characters survive so the game can continue, _don't let the players in on this decision._ It's important to the game that they believe their characters are always in danger. If the players believe, consciously or subconsciously, that you'll never let bad things happen to their characters, they'll change the way they act. With no element of risk, victory will seem less sweet. And if something bad _does_ happen to a character, that player may believe you're out to get him if he feels you saved the other players when their characters were in trouble.



This is interesting to me in how strong a paternalistic stance the core books adopt. They're expecting you as a DM to manipulate and outright lie to the players (albeit in a way that makes sense dramatically) in order to get them to think what you want them to.

***

Of non-D&D sources, I've always thought that CoC offers some of the best advice for running a game, regardless of genre:







			
				CoC d20 said:
			
		

> Crafting a story: First and foremost, a game session is a story. It should make some sense and hang together rationally, providing a beginning, middle, climax, and ending. Telling spooky stories around the campfire is how horror began; your Call of Cthulhu games should aim for at least that degree of immediate power.



Since I got started in the hobby by storytelling, this speaks to me.



			
				p.225 said:
			
		

> USING THE RULES
> The rules of a roleplaying game may seem complex at first. After all, they have to represent everything that could possibly happen in the world at any time. When you add in monstrosities from non-Euclidean dimensions, sorcery left over from the archaic empires of serpent men, and gods who shred reality like rice paper, that becomes a pretty big job. The key is to grasp the underlying logic of these rules. Be familiar with their central principles such as skill checks and how they represent the "basic reality" of the Call of Cthulhu universe. Read this book through and stay familiar with its basic concepts. Don't hesitate to extrapolate form the underlying principles when something comes up that the rules, remain silent on.



Which is really the whole game right there, articulated better in any form than I recall seeing it elsewhere. This is why we have rpgs: to set up a set of rules that show you how an imaginary world works as a starting point, which we then expound upon, with the DM/GM leading the way.

Really, the whole book is very good and has several chapters on GMing.

***

Probably one of the most important non-D&D sources I used to develop a DMing philosophy was the behind-the-scenes commentary in various forms that Ron Moore delivered on the new (2004) Battlestar Galactica. A representative mission statement:


> A lot of the show was about subverting audience expectation. You think you’ve seen this show before. You think you know what your hero’s going to do in this situation. You think you know how television is going to take you by the hand and say, “It’s OK, don’t worry! Your heroes aren’t going to become suicide bombers!” We have the heroes do that, and then see how the audience feels. Make them really think about their preconceptions, and think about the story that we’re telling. That was a lot of the guiding philosophy behind it.



Which is very much how I've always looked at D&D. If the players are expecting certain things, goals, world elements, NPC behaviors, basic facts of reality, the way to really engage them is to target some salient expectations of theirs and purposefully and profoundly violate them.

And to sprinkle this variation about in different ways. An entirely conventional plot might unfold over an unconventional timeframe. A seemingly insincere NPC might turn out to be an ally. A treasure hunt might turn into an existential conflict. But each time, not only is an expectation being violated, but the nature of the targeted expectation is completely different. The players then genuinely cannot predict what is coming, and hopefully are freed of any predispositions they might have had.

Another big lesson I got from his commentary was to try to use the meta-level constraints (time and practical considerations) to create an in-world experience. This speaks very loudly to roleplaying in my view. If the characters stand to lose something, it helps if the players do too (which is why I stopped letting them make new characters without penalty; now they actually lose something when they lose a character).


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 28, 2014)

It really bugs me that the 3.5 DMG says that it's okay to cheat. It should have included a discussion on why you should or why you shouldn't, and that different DMs have different styles. 

Every DMG I've seen tries to teach you the Only Right Way to DM. That's a big problem for DMing as an art.


----------



## Rod Staffwand (May 28, 2014)

When in doubt, I always go with 50-50. Everybody understands the coin flip and its regimented impartiality. This is, of course, in situations not relevant to character abilities. If some sort of skill or save would apply best, I use that instead. If a PC needs a miracle to survive, I go with 5%...natural 20. Everyone also understands the beauty of a natural 20 when you really, really need one.

I don't bother to hide monster stats from my players. The players always know the math at work. Some might prefer to decode context clues from the DM, but I haven't met any. I'll hide monsters capabilities until they're unleashed, but rarely the raw numbers.

Players are responsible for creating characters that have a reason to join and adventure with the group. I don't force players to roleplay if they don't want to. Their PCs are free to have no 'real' motivation for all I care. Even a half-mumbled "My dude just wants to kill stuff and get treasure, I guess." is fine by me. But contrarian motivation I don't allow. A player that wants to create an evil, power-mad megalomaniac necromancer for a group of paladins out to save the world is not going to cut it. Inter-party conflict should be avoided at all costs unless you have a mature group of experienced players willing to delve into such content.

DMs should most certainly help players create characters for their games. The DM should be forthcoming about the nature of the world, the campaign and the group. If the player has a concept that doesn't quite fit, the DM should work with the player to determine what about the concept appeals to the player and then work to make it campaign compatible. "Hey, I really have this idea of a Klingon badass!" "Umm...how about a half-orc instead?" "Can I play a Jedi?" "Uhh...maybe there's an ancient order of monks using light swords somewhere in my world..."

The best advice I can give DMs and potential DMs that isn't found in most DMGs, is: "Don't take it too seriously." When the players are openly mocking the archvillain you spend two hours lovingly crafting, laugh with them. It happens. It's D&D. When you make a bad call and are later corrected, say "Oopsy" and do what you can to salvage the situation. When the players trounce your epic encounter or, worse, go off in the opposite direction, roll with it. Open your Monster Manual or your campaign file and throw something else at them. There is always another encounter, another combat, another dungeon, another adventure to do it better.

I got a lot better at DMing when I started thinking of myself as an MC (Master of Ceremonies). You introduce monsters and NPCs who do their acts, keep things moving along, and make sure everyone is having a good time. I was never worse at DMing then when I thought of myself as an "auteur" with my game being some sort of brilliant artistic masterwork (it wasn't).


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 28, 2014)

GX.Sigma said:


> It really bugs me that the 3.5 DMG says that it's okay to cheat. It should have included a discussion on why you should or why you shouldn't, and that different DMs have different styles.



It does. Actually, another paragraph that I didn't quote comes between the two that I did (I do have to type these things manually):


> However, you might not think it's right or even fun unless you obey the same rules the players do. Sometimes the PCs get lucky and kill an NPC you had planned to have around for a long time. By the same token, sometimes things go against the PCs, and disaster may befall them. Both the DM and the players take the bad with the good. That's a perfectly acceptable way to play, and if there's a default method of DMing, that's it.



This posits a compelling rationale for not "cheating": consistency. If you believe that NPCs and PCs should be treated the same way, DM cheating makes less sense. If you want PCs to be "special", then it makes more sense.

The rules were designed as one consistent and logical set of parameters for all possible characters, so if you want your players to be outside of the norm, you have to change them in some way. DM cheating is one common way of doing that; it enforces a level of "plot protection" beyond what the rules themselves could reasonably provide.



> Every DMG I've seen tries to teach you the Only Right Way to DM. That's a big problem for DMing as an art.



The 3e version is pretty pluralistic as I see it. Not as much as it could be, perhaps, but the practical implication is that it's very difficult to write advice that's concrete enough to mean anything to the reader, while being open-ended enough to accommodate all possibilities (though I think this is one area where CoC outstrips the other games I've seen).


----------



## pemerton (May 29, 2014)

[MENTION=6776279]Rod Staffwand[/MENTION], sorry I couldn't XP your post, which I enjoyed.



Celebrim said:


> The most common alignment I see in play is Chaotic Self-Interest, which is followed closely there after by Neutral Pragmatist.  The only campaign defeat that is meaningful in that context is the death/maiming of a PC.  Expecting players to view other goals with great concern is I think naïve, and even to the extent that some will, all I think you are doing is punishing players for having goals beyond killing things and taking their stuff and specifically punishing those with story goals more severely than those with less prosaic concerns.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Beyond that, this approach once again amounts to railroading, with the GM deciding what story he'd actually prefer and then implementing it regardless of the rules or fiction.



Your description of what is common among players isn't really something that I've experienced for 25-odd years. I've generally found that players want to engage the fiction.

This relates to the idea of "punishing more severely". In my experience, if players want to engage the fiction, then providing them with fiction to engage - even fiction which is adverse to the desires of their PCs - needn't be experienced as punishing the player. It's providing the player with what s/he wants.

This generalisation plays out differently in detail across different players, of course, and part of being a good GM is knowing in which respects, and how far, you can push your players without making the fiction no longer fun or engaging for them. But flawless victory for the PCs certainly isn't the only thing that will tick that box, at least in my experience.

Finally, on the railroad - if players using a 13th Age-style mechanic declare a retreat, then the GM deciding upon the campaing loss is not railroading or circumventing the rules. S/he is following the rules, which the players have enlivened. If, at that point of the game, the players don't want to put things into the GM's hands, then they can always decline to declare a retreat and let the action resolution dice fall where they may.



Celebrim said:


> And once again, we have a definition of what it means to be an artful dungeon master which is situational and limited.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> a theory of good DMing has to encompass both your home game with players you've been with for 30 years and who all have identical aesthetics of play, and that random group of 12 strangers at a Con or local gaming store.



One thing that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] has posted a few times in recent weeks (months?) on these boards is that there is no single set of GMing techniques that is universally applicable. I agree with that.

Moldvay thinks that metagaming is bad. In my OP I explained why I don't follow that advice any more, although even up to 15 years ago I used to follow it religiously. That doesn't mean that there aren't others out there following Moldvay's advice still, and whose games are better for it. Different RPGers are coming to the game with different propensities, different expectations and different desires for the play experience.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 29, 2014)

There is quite a bit of DMing advice to be found, much of it solid, some of it not so much. The best piece of advice I have for prospective DMs is to stop worrying about getting everything right and just run some games. Like a great many other activities, just diving in and doing it is the best solution. 

I see a great many parallel issues between running games and miniature painting. In this day and age, with instantaneous communication via internet and hordes of wonderful knowledgeable people, very accessible its so easy to fall into the trap of what I like to call everprep. 

The law of everprep says that there is wealth of information out there just waiting, and if you are dilligent enough to consume it all before attempting your endeavor then it is sure to be a smashing success first time out. 

It doesn't work by the way.

Advice, support, and resources are very nice things but direct experience is still the best teacher. I mentioned the similarity to miniature painting because I have experienced it firsthand with regard to trying new techniques. I found myself putting off trying them because there was just one more tutorial to look up, one more cool how-to video to watch. It was all informative and entertaining but fairly meaningless until I had actually slapped on some paint to see it in action. 

Dungeon Mastering as a fine art is no different. Advice only goes so far. Not all of it is even of value depending on your situation. My advice then is to run a game for your friends before stepping on that everprep treadmill. It might be great, it might kinda suck, but it will be practial experience that has personal value to you. Once you have a few games experience, all the advice and suggestions you get will make more sense because you will have been there and done that.


----------



## Lanefan (May 29, 2014)

ExploderWizard said:


> The best piece of advice I have for prospective DMs is to stop worrying about getting everything right and just run some games. Like a great many other activities, just diving in and doing it is the best solution.



I'll add here: after playing in some games and watching what the DM does there, making mental notes of what works for you and what doesn't about what that DM is doing and how she does it. 


> Dungeon Mastering as a fine art is no different. Advice only goes so far. Not all of it is even of value depending on your situation. My advice then is to run a game for your friends before stepping on that everprep treadmill. It might be great, it might kinda suck, but it will be practial experience that has personal value to you.



This is important too: don't expect anything much out of the first game you run.  I always suggest running a one-off adventure just to learn the ropes, and then starting in to your actual campaign. (and if you can find a way to tie the one-off adventure into said campaign later, so much the better)


> Once you have a few games experience, all the advice and suggestions you get will make more sense because you will have been there and done that.



Amd, paradoxically enough, you'll probably find you don't need it as much. 

That said, the best thing you can ever have as a DM is good, fun, entertaining players.

Lanefan


----------



## Manbearcat (May 29, 2014)

I've talked about GMing principles and advice in several systems that I enjoy.   How about some Mouse Guard by Luke Crane.



> p8
> 
> The GM’s job is to transform the players’ guardmice characters into heroes. How does he do that? By challenging the players with obstacles set in their path. It is only by overcoming difficult challenges and passing through the fire of conflict that the players’ characters can become heroes.




This might be a bit controversial because it states its the GM's job to transform the PCs into heroes.  Obviously that transformation is the synthesis of the GM framing the PCs into a situation/conflict, the PCs making decision and deploying resources, and the ultimate resolution and fallout of the conflict.  The first part is what Luke is talking about here.  How are the PCs to become heroes if they have no exciting conflicts to carve out their legend?



> p11 *Passing the Spotlight*
> 
> It’s the GM’s job to pass the spot-light around and make sure every player gets an opportunity to contribute and shine.




Pretty straightforward here.  You're not framing one PC into a thematic conflict.  You're framing all of them into conflicts that matter to them personally and which give them the opportunity to struggle and to be heroic.



> p12 *Structure of Play*
> 
> A single session lasts two to four hours. During the course of a session, the players use their guardmice characters to complete a mission presented by the GM. Missions consist of a series of obstacles to overcome and problems to solve. These obstacles and problems are dealt with by testing the characters’ abilities. The results of these tests determine where the game goes next.




Looks good to me.  Change out guardmice for adventurers and mission for quest and you've got D&D.  The specific duties inherent to being in the Guard and the obstacles/hazards to overcome while performing them are broached later.



> Typical Duties:  Patrolling, path clearing, trail blazing, carrying mail, escorting, weather watching, hunting predators, maintaining the scent border, rescuing mice in distress and mediating disputes.
> 
> Typical Obstacles/Hazards:  Weather, wilderness, animals, and mice.




D&D has an analogue for each of these or it maps precisely.  Basically the GM should have a strong list of genre-relevant conflicts to frame the PCs into and within those conflicts the GM should have genre-relevant antagonists that opposes the PCs will/machinations.  And make sure to keep it exciting, challenging, thematically coherent, well-paced and up the ante on the stakes when its called for!



> p 14 *Canon*
> 
> Canon refers to the story as it happened in the comics. Some things in your game might be different than the comics, or might even change the events or the characters. That’s okay!
> 
> Once your game has started, it is yours. It does not have to follow the story of the comics. You can use the characters and the events however you wish, so long as it’s in keeping with the mood of Mouse Guard as a whole.




So don't be afraid to deviate from canon and make the game your own but take care that you don't stretch mood and genre credibility to the point that it breaks.  If the game calls for A Song of Fire and Ice aesthetic then you don't want Peter Pan or the Three Stooges making an appearance (or vice versa).  Its certainly the players' responsibilities to adhere to that credo but the GM takes a leading role here.



> p 43 - 44 *Challenging Beliefs*
> 
> This section is for the GM more than the players, but players should read it too.
> 
> ...




I'm including all of these together.  There are system-specific mechanical components at work here but the general guidance is extremely tight and functional for any thematic play that is meant to be emotionally or dramatically provocative.  

Players are going to have quests.  Don't be afraid to make them overt and central to play (as 4e does).  These are player goals that they telegraph to the GM, signaling him what sort of content they're interested in engaging in and moving toward.  

Simple, transparent ethos and pathos statements signal to the GM what is philosophically and emotionally important to the PC in question.  What will they fight for?  What are their limits?  Just how important is this thing/belief to you?  When you have to prioritize these values/emotions, which yields and which prevails?  What about when the PCs as a group have to prioritize their collective values and emotions because their at tension with one another?  Conflict!

Draw these out of your players and pull on those strings they give you.  

In the end, you'll fill all of their lives with exciting adventure that each of them care about and we'll all find out if they're heroes (or troll lunch) and, if so, what kind of heroes they turn out to be as their legacy is carved out in play.


----------



## Hussar (May 29, 2014)

On the notion of character creation.

I think one of the best pieces of advice I ever got was; do not create characters one at a time.  Character creation should be a group effort.  It's one place that FATE gets very right.  Every Fate character will have direct ties to at least two other characters in the group.  No one is an island.  Everyone is tied together.

Our current Dark Sun campaign didn't do this and it really showed.  We spent a long time just trying to build a group consensus on what we actually should be doing.  For a long time, the loudest voice (probably unsurprisingly mine, ) was driving a lot of the campaign.  Everything the group was very much centred on my character because I was the only one who had concrete goals.

In a group where everyone works together to build a group, it makes sharing the spotlight a lot easier.


----------



## Celebrim (May 29, 2014)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=6776279]Your description of what is common among players isn't really something that I've experienced for 25-odd years. I've generally found that players want to engage the fiction.




'Engage the fiction' is such broad and vague term that I can't tell whether I agree or not, nor can I tell if the assertion that players want to 'engage the fiction' represents an actual contradiction to anything I said.  But in 30 years of gaming, I can count on one hand the number of times that a player chose death, retirement of the PC, or maiming of the PC as preferable to the sacrifice of what the PC believed in.  And in general, I find that if you examine the priorities of the PC's ethos, players who prioritize their PCs interests above the interests of NPCs and above any higher philosophical cause vastly outnumber the contrary. 

As best as I can tell, they are all 'engaging the fiction'.  



> But flawless victory for the PCs certainly isn't the only thing that will tick that box, at least in my experience.




That's not what I asserted.  In fact, you yourself have agreed with what I asserted - trading loss of an actual game resource for the color of increased adversity in the fiction is a win-win for the average player.   Not only do they get to keep all their stuff, but they get to feel good about it.  However, I'm not at all convinced that this sort of metagame doesn't in fact change the way that player's approach play and challenges within play, nor is it clear that this is the same experience as having actual 'loss loss' be a possibility.  If you want to say, it's good for the PC's to never really lose, then sure, make that argument.  But I think it is a mistake to assume that the players don't have the mindset, "Any crash we can walk away from is a good landing."  or that there is necessarily any difference between "failing forward" and "winning at cost".

And since in general, most players treat loss of anything that isn't on their character sheet as mere color, mostly "failing forward" means "winning".  



> Finally, on the railroad - if players using a 13th Age-style mechanic declare a retreat, then the GM deciding upon the campaing loss is not railroading or circumventing the rules. S/he is following the rules, which the players have enlivened.




"Following the rules" is not a contradiction to "railroading".  It's quite possible to write rules that encourage or even require the GM to engage in railroading.  That is to say, the rules can require and explicitly encourage the GM to metagame not only in the creation of the myth (that is to say, in protagonizing the character Luke within the Star Wars universe by making Darth Vader actually his father) but in recreation of the fiction and extemporaneous invention to respond to player propositions.   Paranoia for example explicitly encourages the GM to railroad in sadistic, creative, lethal ways to every player proposition, so that every plan not only goes awry but becomes profoundly and ludicrously complicated.  Indeed, Paranoia even encourages railroading as a metagame construct - for example, punishing the PC in game for any assertion that the player makes about the rules.  Rules lawyering is - per the rules - punished by PC death.

Gygaxian D&D treats retreat as a valid strategic and tactical choice that does not bear any special penalty beyond the difficulty of extracting oneself from a situation and the time it provides your enemies to regroup and carry out plans (if they have the intelligence to do so).   But, we could always create rules that encouraged the DM to lay a heavier hand on the PC's choices, for example, in penalizing them with the loss of XP if they retreated, causing a certain amount of gold to inevitably spill from their bags, or in some other way forcing a loss on the player by the heavy hand of fiction ("You return to find the village devastated.").  That we made this a metagame consideration by also promising the players that a retreat would be otherwise successful if this cost was paid does not make it less railroading.  Such rules place the GM in the role of track layer, with the PC's choice being simply "Which set of rails do we wish to follow?"   We can at least hope the scenes are broad, because all the transitions are assuredly narrow.


----------



## Bawylie (May 29, 2014)

I think we're getting into frameworks, here. Wherein the game world is a mimetic framework while an adventure might well be diegetic. That is, the train Depot offers a lot of rides to a lot of places. But when you finally pick and board, you're on that track until you reach a destination (alive or dead). 

I think so much is made of simulation, narrative, railroading, and meta game that we forget the very appropriate intersections between these elements. 

Consequently, we suffer rules debates (what's the appropriate % chance of surviving a 30 ft drop?) instead of trying to work out what's right for the game & the circumstances. As if systems & mechanics hold the answer to "how do I play this game?"

Luke chooses death rather than joining up with Vader. In choosing, he drops - fully knowing the outcome is death. Interesting character choice. And in a "consistent" world, he'd die. But then we get a diegetic deus ex machina that spares him. This happened instead of that. The author or narrator or whatever made something interesting happen out of that choice, even though what was interesting wasn't close to likely. 

I think we should do this more often. Not turn to system to adjudicate every action, but find a way to make these big decisions interesting. Switch between mimesis and diegesis to subvert expectation. It's more exciting, anyway.


----------



## Celebrim (May 29, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> I think we're getting into frameworks, here. Wherein the game world is a mimetic framework while an adventure might well be diegetic.




I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on that because it's the first time I've heard the terms applied to RPGs.  It would seem to me that normally in the classical RPG mode, the players are mostly mimetic while the game master is mostly diegetic save when he speaks 'in character' as an NPC.   But, in another sense, depending on what you mean by the terms, is an RPG mimetic since everyone is pretending not to be who they are?   And as film uses the terms, the divide seems to be between things that in an RPG are IC and OOC.   So I'm not sure where you are going with that, but it's got my brain fizzing.



> Consequently, we suffer rules debates (what's the appropriate % chance of surviving a 30 ft drop?) instead of trying to work out what's right for the game & the circumstances.




Again, more questions than answers here.   If the rules aren't for working out what's right for the game and the circumstances, what are they for and don't we need some new rules?   Are you saying that the rules aren't broke because of DM fiat?



> As if systems & mechanics hold the answer to "how do I play this game?"




That almost sounds like a statement of Celebrim's Second Law of RPGs.   Let's say that I grant you that system doesn't matter, how do you work out what the right story is?



> Luke chooses death rather than joining up with Vader. In choosing, he drops - fully knowing the outcome is death. Interesting character choice.




Possibly.  Lucas does a lot of showing and very little telling in those scenes.  It's clear Vader doesn't really expect Luke to die.  Especially in the original cuts, Vader is moving to rescue Luke.   It is true that Luke is out of resources and defeated, and the only real question is whether he'll end up with Dad (and ultimately be converted to the Dark Side) or whether Luke's loyalty to his friends will be rewarded when we get the Leia reveal.



> And in a "consistent" world, he'd die.




That depends.  In a superheroes game, he's just pulled an 'obscure death' option, which consistency demands he survive in some improbable fashion.   Since IMO Star Wars is firmly and wholly in the fantasy genera, his surviving a fall from a very high place is consistent with the rules of fantasy.   It would be wholly inconsistent with the rules of detective fiction, where falls are invariably instantly lethal.



> But then we get a diegetic deus ex machina that spares him.




Luke is spared by Leia.  Explain what you mean by diegetic in this case, please.   Also, if the Leia reveal is deus ex machina (in RPG terms, she's already a 'player character'), isn't the Vader reveal also a sort of deus ex machina.  Afterall, if Vader isn't Luke's father, then surely he would have killed Luke without mercy before this point.   But at least with the Vader reveal, in context it all makes sense and was clearly foreshadowed, and in the context of the Vader reveal the Leia reveal is also clearly something that was there all along.   Isn't there a difference between Deus ex Mechina and Chekhov's Gun?   



> This happened instead of that. The author or narrator or whatever made something interesting happen out of that choice, even though what was interesting wasn't close to likely.




I'm hesitant to fully endorse any simple comparison between RPGs as art and other mediums as art, particularly in the areas where RPGs diverge from other artistic mediums.   In an RPG, the audience is a participant in the creation of the art.  The overall story is one which is collectively constructed, and there are aesthetic agenda's present in the audience of a game that just aren't present in the case of film.  The audience of a movie isn't eager to see if he actually can navigate his way to the end of the story through his wit and cunning.  How does it change your viewpoint of this scene if it is Vader and not Luke which is the PC?


----------



## Manbearcat (May 29, 2014)

Hussar said:


> On the notion of character creation.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In a group where everyone works together to build a group, it makes sharing the spotlight a lot easier.




Good post (but can't xp) and agreed completely.  I think this is a very underestimated cog in the machinery of a coherent game.  Something like Fate's character creation or Dungeon World's Bond system works wonders to unify the characters' goals (and thus the conflicts they will be vested into), backstory interests, and/or thematics.  Players who are invested in a fiction-first approach to play are a GM's best friend (unless you're intentionally trying to play a Pawn Stance game - which is a fair and fun way to play but completely at odds with a table dynamic that purports to value immersion or emergent story) and any technique or systemic means to reward or embolden that investment is win:win.


----------



## Bawylie (May 29, 2014)

I'm on my phone so forgive any format issues. 

Let's say that I feel mimesis is the representation of an internally consistent game world that is portrayed according to its nature (along with any elements therein). 

And that for purposes of RPGs, diegesis is the assumption of narrative control outside of the mimetic frame. 

So you have a world that, by default, operates according to its nature except where a player or DM exercises some power to author the situation. For instance, combat. Or, in some more extreme cases, player authorship of game elements (the "Yes, and..." approach).  In which case, play departs from what would theoretically be expected to happen, and we say "This happens," and it's so. 

Let's leave it at this for now. We're either playing things according to how we truly feel they should be played or we decide to depart from expectation. Simple, but I don't want a novella here. 

As a player, portraying my character, my only real burden is to set a goal, and decide how I want to achieve it. I can do this mimetically (acting as my character and speaking in their voice) or diegetically (simply stating what happens, picking powers, meta-gaming, and conveying my PC's desires outside of dialogue). 

As a DM, my goal is to portray a fantastic world, adjudicate fairly, identify my players' goals, and set obstacles in their paths. Doing these, I have a sandbox (mimetic) world, but very experience-driven adventures. Meaning that events and plots that unfold in the world are tailored to a specific experience I want the players to have (vs what would strictly make sense in the world). I switch frameworks depending on how we're playing the game at the moment, appropriate to the moment - not in service to the mechanics. 

While mechanics exist and help me adjudicate fairly, that's not where I go first when DM-ing. This brings us to Luke. 

I wasn't clear enough when I said he was spared by Deus ex Machina. See, he chose death rather than evil and dropped what is established as a lethal distance (functionally bottomless). But instead of plummeting down to the planet or going splat at whatever the eventual bottom of the place was, he sort of curved Into a chute and came sliding to a stop, right over a trap door that deposited him beneath the city. THAT is the d.e.m. It's the diegetic moment in which the author decided that, instead of splat, this series of implausible events would happen. 

So you asked what good are rules if they don't work out for the circumstances in the game. I'm saying we're to quick to jump to the rules, FIRST, instead of our judgement. If Luke was my player, and I present him with a choice of falling down a bottomless pit  or conversion to evil, I should NOT give him the odds of survival. I want Luke's player to decide what to do based on the situation & circumstances, not the rules and math.  If Luke chooses death, I may well take narrative control and let him slip down a chute and get stuck in a pickle from which he may or may not escape. I may kill him. In either case, using the system has not added anything to this moment.  That doesn't mean the rules are broken. It means they don't apply here and shouldn't reasonably be expected to. The "right story" is the one that's created by the diegetic action (the departure from the true nature of the game world). 

Luke's player, beaten within an inch of his life, looks at me and says "I'd rather die," then let's go and falls. I need to honor that decision somehow. And the system is too heartless, too arbitrary, and does not match the frickin metal Luke's player just laid down. The right story matches that metal. 

That's not to say the system is broken. Obviously, we use the system to adjudicate fairly those situations with unclear outcomes.  It's just that sometimes, the possibilities are more important than the dice might grant. In other words, if Luke is going to die from being so metal, it's not going to because he rolled a 2. If he lives, it's not because of a 20. It's because the DM must decide between the two and faithfully say what happens. Mimesis (epic fall to death) or diegesis (any outcome). 

Let's leave Luke and assume Vader is the PC. Vaders goal is recruitment of his son, and accumulation of power. He's defeated Luke (an NPC) and put him in a bind. Does Vader's player roll to see whether Luke joins him? Is that what diplomacy checks are for? I don't think so. So I don't dip into the rules. Instead, I rely on Luke's nature. Vader tells me he wants to seduce or manipulate Luke into joining him. And, he's clearly got leverage. Luke's beaten and has no escape route. However, I know Luke cannot be corrupted in this way and Vader doesn't even get a cha-check. This is an auto-fail. I simply play Luke true to himself. He falls. Vader's player curses as he's just let his whole goal slip from his grasp. This could be game over for Vader, but later, I tell him he senses his son in the force, alive, and reaching out for him. I've played Luke mimetically, and then turned diegetic to re-up Vader's player on his quest. I turned a total fail into a setback. Vader redoubles his resolve. No system. 

I get your hesitation to compare disparate media. But I'm saying we can run better games if we actually understand what we're doing, dramatically, or imitatively, instead of jumping to the system first. 

Dang. I ran long. TLDR -part of  The Fine Art of DM-ing is asking "What would be metal RIGHT NOW?" before reaching for the dice.


----------



## Sadras (May 29, 2014)

GX.Sigma said:


> It really bugs me that the 3.5 DMG says that it's okay to cheat. It should have included a discussion on why you should or why you shouldn't, and that different DMs have different styles.




If I'm remembering correctly 2e did too - where the story could superseded rules. It certainly wasn't a new concept by the time 3.5 came out.

4e broke most of those historical shackles (at least within D&D).


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 30, 2014)

Sadras said:


> If I'm remembering correctly 2e did too - where the story could superseded rules. It certainly wasn't a new concept by the time 3.5 came out.
> 
> 4e broke most of those historical shackles (at least within D&D).




I'm not saying this is a 3e issue, or a DM cheating issue. The issue is that every DMG tries to tell you what kind of DM to be. 

4e tells you to skip past "boring" non-setpiece-combat encounters. 3e tells you the "best way" to deal with character death. Gygax assumes you're running an open-table sandbox where the dice fall as they may. None of them encourage you to figure out your own style.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (May 30, 2014)

GX.Sigma said:


> It really bugs me that the 3.5 DMG says that it's okay to cheat. It should have included a discussion on why you should or why you shouldn't, and that different DMs have different styles.




What you are calling "cheating" goes back into earlier editions of D&D, too.  Even Gygax said that DMs should alter rules as they see fit.

On one end of the spectrum are highly mechanistic DMs/players who basically see D&D as a wargame with roleplaying added on top of it.  On the other end are those who see it as cooperative storytelling with some dice rolls to throw in a bit of randomness.  Most people that I have met fall somewhere between those two extremes.

Those who tend to enjoy the more mechanistic aspects of it would see rule bending as "cheating," while those who fall more on the storytelling side tend to see it as making adjustments so the game and story are more satisfying to all.  It's just two different ways of looking at the same thing.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 30, 2014)

pickin_grinnin said:


> What you are calling "cheating" goes back into earlier editions of D&D, too.  Even Gygax said that DMs should alter rules as they see fit.



There's a distinction there, though, if not multiple ones. A DM changing the rules beforehand and telling everyone (houserules) is not cheating by any definition.

The cheating being referred to here is different in that it is:
1. Inconsistent. The rules for Finger of Death are still the same. You still die if you roll below the DC. The DM is making an exception just on a particular occasion and for a particular character.
2. Covert. The book explicitly and firmly tells you not to reveal what you've done to the players.

The merits of doing that are debatable; not that it's necessarily wrong (most of us probably do it at least sometimes), but it shouldn't be dogma that it's right either.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (May 30, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> 1. Inconsistent. The rules for Finger of Death are still the same. You still die if you roll below the DC. The DM is making an exception just on a particular occasion and for a particular character.
> 2. Covert. The book explicitly and firmly tells you not to reveal what you've done to the players.




I work hard to make sure things balance out for everyone, and that if I alter a rule dramatically (even temporarily) it is beneficial to the character.  I don't alter things frequently, but when I do there is a reason for it.  I wouldn't reveal it to the players in most cases, though. I don't tell players "the goblin has an armor class of blah blah."  I say "roll a d20" (or whatever).  All they know is what their character knows - they hit, or they didn't.


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2014)

[MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] - I do have one issue with your scenario. That Vader as PC cannot succeed. I strongly disagree with this approach. 

To me it smacks too much of railroading. The DM has predetermined outcomes that the player cannot change. 

Vader and Luke fight. If Luke wins, Vader likely either dies or is captured. If Vader wins, his goals are still thwarted because he had no chance of success at the outset. 

Vader's player would be far better off straight up killing Luke. And players learn this from their DM's very quickly. 

After this scene, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the Luke NPC gets killed on sight with no chance of obscure death.


----------



## Lanefan (May 30, 2014)

GX.Sigma said:


> 4e tells you to skip past "boring" non-setpiece-combat encounters. 3e tells you the "best way" to deal with character death. Gygax assumes you're running an open-table sandbox where the dice fall as they may. None of them encourage you to figure out your own style.



Gygax doesn't come right out and tell you to figure out your own style but he pretty much acknowledges that you're probably going to do so anyway, as he did, once you become familiar with how the game works.

It's the later editions (3e and 4e) that seem to be more constraining, in terms of saying and-or strongly implying This Is How It's Done.  2e didn't seem to care very much either way as long as nobody was Evil.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2014)

Lanefan, I have to say that that is the opposite of how I read things. Gygax makes no bones about how the game should be played and is pretty dismissive, at least in his writings, of anyone who does things differently. 

3e, particularly the DMG doesn't actually have all that much to say. The actual dming advice in the 3e DMG is pretty sparse. A few pages in the front and that's about it. There's a reason the 3e DMG is criticized as reading like stereo instructions. It's bloody boring. 

Now 4e is a lot like AdnD. The DMG is written with a very strong voice. But once you get into later books like the dmg2 things change a lot and the advice gets a lot broader.


----------



## Bawylie (May 30, 2014)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] Maybe you're right. But I still don't call for rolls when actions will automatically succeed or fail. I just say what happens next. In this scenario, Luke cannot be seduced or manipulated in the fashion Vader attempted. (Later, when he threatens to turn Leia, that's the approach that moves Luke). And again, when the emperor tries to seduce/manipulate Luke with power, that fails. Wrong approach for that NPC. 

Is that railroading, or true to character? Should I ask for a roll just to avoid the semblance of railroading? I think no. 

DM posits a scenario. PC declares an action. DM determines how that action plays out (sometimes with system mechanics and sometimes not). Then DM describes the changed scenario.


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] Maybe you're right. But I still don't call for rolls when actions will automatically succeed or fail. I just say what happens next. In this scenario, Luke cannot be seduced or manipulated in the fashion Vader attempted. (Later, when he threatens to turn Leia, that's the approach that moves Luke). And again, when the emperor tries to seduce/manipulate Luke with power, that fails. Wrong approach for that NPC.
> 
> Is that railroading, or true to character? Should I ask for a roll just to avoid the semblance of railroading? I think no.
> 
> DM posits a scenario. PC declares an action. DM determines how that action plays out (sometimes with system mechanics and sometimes not). Then DM describes the changed scenario.




Again, this is a playstyle thing, not a right or wrong answer issue. To me, the dice determine how an action plays out. 

IOW the dice and mechanics provide the direction, the DM fills in the script. If the dice say that Vader wins, then he wins. I will not strip away player success because of my own wishes for how the story plays out. 

To be perfectly frank, I see what you are describing as a failure of imagination on the part of the DM. The DM cannot see how the game will move forward if Vader succeeds so Vader cannot be allowed to succeed. 

The mechanics say that Luke is persuaded by Vader. To me, over riding that result is not conducive to a game I want to participate in, on either side of the screen.


----------



## Bawylie (May 30, 2014)

Leave Vader aside. Can a non-magical class cast a spell if the dice come up right? Or is it impossible?

Can a character with +50 in athletics jump a mile or is it impossible? Can he fail to jump a foot? Or is it automatic?

Do you allow for any action to have automatic success or fail conditions - or is that all failure of imagination?

Back to Vader as PC. That specific approach (offering power and order) to me is auto-fail. Had he taken a different approach, there may have been a chance for success. Say Vader says, "Join me, or I'll kill Solo and Leia. I have them both."  Even if he's lying, there's a chance that would work. 

So it's not that I cannot imagine a scenario in which PC Vader wins. It's that some actions are flat-out not possible and I don't run a game through a mechanics system just to say I did. DM judgment first, mechanics for ambiguous outcomes second.


----------



## Agamon (May 30, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Again, this is a playstyle thing, not a right or wrong answer issue. To me, the dice determine how an action plays out.
> 
> IOW the dice and mechanics provide the direction, the DM fills in the script. If the dice say that Vader wins, then he wins. I will not strip away player success because of my own wishes for how the story plays out.
> 
> ...




There are things that shouldn't be rolled for, though, right?  If a player wants to steal someone's pants or talk the king into abdicating and letting him rule or create a perpetual motion machine, do you so okay, roll?

For me, rolling happens only after everything is played out and an outcome is uncertain.  If, during an exchange, it becomes obvious what the outcome should be, no rolling is necessary.  Everyone's mileage on "role vs roll" may vary, of course, but this way, I find it keeps the absurd results to a minimum while still leaving the players with reasonable agency through roleplay.


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2014)

I look at it this way. Luke just learned that his trusted teachers, Yoda and Obi-Wan have been lying to his face for months or even years. His major motivation- avenging his father was a complete fabrication. 

And that's not enough to possibly shift him to the side of the father he's always been looking for who tells him they will be a force of power throughout the galaxy?  

I really do see this as a failure of imagination. 

Or to put it another way, you rolls the dice, you takes your chances.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 30, 2014)

These threads just get amusing once the usual suspects get involved. There's a reason I post infrequently in these kinds of threads these days. Sorry,  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], but I knew this would happen.

Of course, you probably did, too. And maybe that's the point. But these discussions have gone from thought-provoking to amusingly absurd for the most part. It's nice to see some new, reasonable faces (like  [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION]), but I just have no interest in participating in a discussion where everyone talks about how "other people do it wrong" with an optional "(for me)" or "(for my group)" thrown in there.

Yeah, different people and different groups prefer different styles of gameplay. Is that it? Do I win the thread? Or is there more to the thread than this? I'm not sure what pemerton's original post was really trying to spark. I read the questions, but I just can't grasp what he's really trying to get out of this thread.

I know what we're getting now, though. And we'll we'll continue to get. Oh well. Here's to some more laughs, huh?


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2014)

No one asked you to read the thread JC. For me, the idea that over ruling the mechanics in service to a predetermined story is very bad advice to DM's and players. 

But, considering that it's pretty prevalent in some circles I'd say that it really is a playstyle thing.


----------



## Hussar (May 30, 2014)

Now that the drive by snark fest has past, let us return to our Vader example. 

Now imagine this in actual play. Vader's player had sunk tons of table time into this plan. He had to go to Bespin and cow Lando. Then set up the ambush and capture Han and the others. All of this leads into the Big Showdown. Fantastic battle ensues between Vader and Luke. 

And Vader's player quite deliberately avoids killing Luke which he likely could have done at any point. 

Vader wins.  Luke is on the ropes and Vader drops the big reveal. Luke's mentors have been lying to him all along. What else are they lying about. Vader makes his pitch....

And the DM ignores all of the above and Luke escapes. 

Do people really feel like this is good gaming?  Honestly?  You would be perfectly fine with this?

You guys must have much more understanding players than I have ever met.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 30, 2014)

Agamon said:


> There are things that shouldn't be rolled for,  though, right?  If a player wants to steal someone's pants or talk the  king into abdicating and letting him rule or create a perpetual motion  machine, do you so okay, roll?




Given quite how badly  D&D magic appears to mess up the laws of thermodynamics I see no  inherent problems with a perpetual motion machine.  Stealing someone's  pants while they are wearing them?  I see nothing wrong with a DC50  Sleight of Hand check and if being generous would make it about DC40.   In short out of reach of an ordinary human in the real world on their _best_  day.  But high level rogues should be that good.  Likewise I see  nothing wrong with diplomats who are as silver tongued as the best  D&D magicians are magical doing absurd things.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 30, 2014)

Hussar said:


> cow Lando




I had to read this like five times before my head stopped being filled visions of a bizarre cow-man hybrids with cheeky grins.



Agamon said:


> For me, rolling happens only after everything is played out and an outcome is uncertain.  If, during an exchange, it becomes obvious what the outcome should be, no rolling is necessary.  Everyone's mileage on "role vs roll" may vary, of course, but this way, I find it keeps the absurd results to a minimum while still leaving the players with reasonable agency through roleplay.




I think this is an approach that's true for almost all DMs, but to a some severely greater or lesser degrees, and that's where some conflicts can develop.

I mean, I had a DM who was so extreme that he wanted to eliminate all social and mental skills (and all social stats, mental stats merely measuring your ability to do magic), except as background elements, and  this, I felt, was really a problem because it meant that a player who wasn't super-adept socially, who wasn't great at arguing on his feat, but who could come up with plausible approaches his character could take, was basically locked out of succeeding at anything social, because he couldn't actually act it out well (even though he could describe what his PC was trying to achieve). We explained to him that he could do that, but he would be DMing for a group of zero, were that the case, which sorted that out, but he frequently attempted to suggest that unless you could RP exactly and precisely what he wanted (which was almost pixel-hunting in some cases), you couldn't even roll, let alone succeed.

I've also directly experienced other DMs who used "we only roll when it's uncertain" as an excuse to just blockblockblockblockblock player ideas and RP that they didn't like - no matter how well-RP'd or reasonable their approach was. I've seen this a few times, too, which makes me leery of strongly advocating for "roll only on last resort"-type deals.

I think it's pretty clear that, in reality, most DMs are firmly in a middle ground where they won't allow a lucky roll to do something that is completely unrealistic, but won't block rolling unless detailed RP takes place, or only allow it when they, personally, are unclear on what would happen (i.e. have no specific opinion). Plus, if the roll does take place, I think it's really bad behaviour to ignore it  - it might not get the PC what the player wants, but if the PC is trying to convince the king to abdicate in his favour, a natural 20 + big skill bonuses will mean the king laughs it off and maybe even considers the PC to be witty and daring (he might even grant him one of those weird medieval court titles), and generally improves in his opinion of him, whereas a poor roll would result in said PC ending up in the stocks, or worse, the dungeons. I don't think it necessarily benefits the game to try and RP out the entire conversation, and it can actually be unfair, in that RPing everything favours people who are fast-talkers, imaginative, and think on their feet (i.e. people like me), whilst penalizing plotters and planners, even if they come up with very theoretically clever approaches to the situation, and even if - importantly - their PC is someone who has the gift of the gab, or is supposed to (say, High CHA, Diplomacy, Bluff, etc - that stuff cost the PC - it is thus important not to ignore it).

My strong experience, too, is that it is really, really easy to deal with the results of ridiculous rolls, and more fun to to that, than to just say "Nope". Sometimes you have to, of course.

As an example of when one does say "Nope, sorry " though, last night the PCs in my game were exploring the sewers of a city they didn't know well at all (none of them had been in that part of the continent), and they asked if they could make a check (I forgot what, something that would normally be appropriate) to guess exactly what was above them without actually going to the surface (they were under a part of the city they'd never been in or heard much about), and I had to say no, they couldn't get detailed information of that kind like that - a good roll could certainly tell them the general area, and maybe they could guess the trades, wealth level and so on from what was down there with them, but they couldn't just know the actual buildings, addresses and so on.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 30, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> Likewise I see  nothing wrong with diplomats who are as silver tongued as the best  D&D magicians are magical doing absurd things.




I think that, historically, this is D&D's problem in a nutshell.

Brilliant RP + really high skills + great roll = the DM can still easily go "nah".

Magic, even a fairly low-level or mid-level spell = Often, not only can the DM not go "nah", but you don't even have to make a good roll.

Hopefully 5E generally avoids this - the only way to do it is to "nerf" the hell out of certain kinds of utility spell (which is to say "give them reasonable limits and drawbacks", which is not something they have consistently had).


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 30, 2014)

To me, the thing with social skills is to be clear about what they mean. That is, to focus on process, rather than outcome. Establishing Diplomacy, for example, as a measure of how eloquent and persuasive the character is makes it much clearer to adjudicate.

It's entirely possible, for example, for very attractive and charismatic people to get by in some situations, even if what they're saying is total BS. But some astute observers will conversely see right through it. On the other hand, it's also clear that other people act in their own best interest, and if you have something genuinely compelling, they may listen even if you do a pretty poor job of conveying it.

For me and those of my players who have been embedded in the science world, the distinction between the merits of one's thoughts and the ability to convey them is quite easy to understand because we see it all the time. Some people have good ideas, some people are good in front of a crowd, some have both, some neither.

I think where the rules go wrong is in focusing too much on outcomes. If I read the 3e Diplo, for example, it starts with







> You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs.



This is misleading. It is possible to change the attitudes of people with Diplomacy, but that isn't really what the skill does. The skill allows you to speak well. The NPC attitude is determined by a variety of factors, of which your speech is only one.

They've buried the lead with that line about "basic" DCs. Those DCs are so basic, they're really inappropriate in just about any in-game situation.

The Bluff skill is even worse:







> A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell.



Gee, thanks for that. The skill at least does a good job of making the effects of circumstance somewhat more explicit, but still ultimately fails to convey the sophistication of deception. It's vague and confusing.

I had a few really cheesy Bluff-related gambits from the players in the early 3e days, before I figured out that the skill is really just telling you how well you delivered the lie, not controlling the target's mind. But again, if you read the text, they buried the lead; it suggests that Bluff is a suggestion spell, and then says that it isn't.

The DMG text on adjudicating skills is significantly better, but of course, people read the PHB first.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 30, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think that, historically, this is D&D's problem in a nutshell.
> 
> Brilliant RP + really high skills + great roll = the DM can still easily go "nah".
> 
> Magic, even a fairly low-level or mid-level spell = Often, not only can the DM not go "nah", but you don't even have to make a good roll.



I would think that the solution, inasmuch as one is needed, would be to make the second scenario more like the first.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 30, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> I would think that the solution, inasmuch as one is needed, would be to make the second scenario more like the first.




Well yes, either approach is viable - it's a matter of taste, really - are you playing a game of myths and legends and fairytales (Princess Bride or LotR, say), or the grimier tale of "what really happened"? (Lankhmar, Conan, say). D&D can be either, has been either, in different editions and settings.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 30, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> To me, the thing with social skills is to be clear about what they mean. That is, to focus on process, rather than outcome. Establishing Diplomacy, for example, as a measure of how eloquent and persuasive the character is makes it much clearer to adjudicate.
> 
> It's entirely possible, for example, for very attractive and charismatic people to get by in some situations, even if what they're saying is total BS. But some astute observers will conversely see right through it. On the other hand, it's also clear that other people act in their own best interest, and if you have something genuinely compelling, they may listen even if you do a pretty poor job of conveying it.
> 
> ...




Not even close.  The lede is exactly the right lede.  Diplomacy isn't about how well you can speak (which is, I agree, a skill in its own right).  Diplomacy is, RAW and RAI about how good you are at getting people to like you and want to bother further, and fundamentally about _establishing a rapport_.  It's not about how well you can present how evolution actually works to a creationist.  You can be as clear and accurate as you like, but unless you can establish a rapport with them they are going to dismiss what you have to say out of hand.

For the record how well you speak, especially in front of a crowd is directly covered by another skill.  Perform (Oratory).



> The Bluff skill is even worse:




On this we can agree.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 30, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Well yes, either approach is viable - it's a matter of taste, really - are you playing a game of myths and legends and fairytales (Princess Bride or LotR, say), or the grimier tale of "what really happened"? (Lankhmar, Conan, say). D&D can be either, has been either, in different editions and settings.



The only tone that I think is really conveyed by the relative automaticity of magic is a "magic as technology" vibe that is really specific to D&D.

And, somewhat independently of textual subtleties, I think magic is best DMed the same way the social skills are: by treating the rules as a process and determining the outcome based on situation.


----------



## Agamon (May 30, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I've also directly experienced other DMs who used "we only roll when it's uncertain" as an excuse to just blockblockblockblockblock player ideas and RP that they didn't like - no matter how well-RP'd or reasonable their approach was. I've seen this a few times, too, which makes me leery of strongly advocating for "roll only on last resort"-type deals.




Bad GM is going to be a bad GM, unfortunately.  But it also allows for a more permissive style, too.  Wanting to say yes to a cool PC idea, but then watching him make a bad unnecessary roll sucks, too.  

But I get what you're saying.  My current EotE GM is saying no a lot in our game, and it is frustrating.  But like I say, that's an unfortunate GMing style.  The game just started and he's a bit rusty after not having run a game in years, so I'll give him a couple sessions before talking to him about it.



Ruin Explorer said:


> As an example of when one does say "Nope, sorry " though, last night the PCs in my game were exploring the sewers of a city they didn't know well at all (none of them had been in that part of the continent), and they asked if they could make a check (I forgot what, something that would normally be appropriate) to guess exactly what was above them without actually going to the surface (they were under a part of the city they'd never been in or heard much about), and I had to say no, they couldn't get detailed information of that kind like that - a good roll could certainly tell them the general area, and maybe they could guess the trades, wealth level and so on from what was down there with them, but they couldn't just know the actual buildings, addresses and so on.




That's not a "no", that's a "yes, but".  Sure you can probably get some sort of idea what's generally above from clues in the sewers, but to know exactly what's above you?  Probably not.  Note, however, as a GM, I'm unsure what level they might know, this is a good situation for a roll.  There is the off chance that a discarded monogrammed item or letter is stuck to the wall that gives a good clue.  There's also a chance there's just sewage.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 30, 2014)

Another very simple piece of DMing advice from the 3e DMG (among other sources) on NPCs:


> Don't be afraid to make them evil.



One of the challenges of DMing is realizing that you are (among other things) the bad guy. In fact, you're a whole bunch of bad guys and girls.

One of the perils of DMing is setting the PCs up against some "BBEG" without ever really establishing why this particular character is so bad. It takes a certain intestinal fortitude to portray the evil ones honestly. But if you don't, what's the point of having good and evil at all?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 30, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> One of the perils of DMing is setting the PCs up against some "BBEG" without ever really establishing why this particular character is so bad. It takes a certain intestinal fortitude to portray the evil ones honestly. But if you don't, what's the point of having good and evil at all?




You don't need good and evil to make a conflict interesting or engaging, though, as so many fantasy authors outside High Fantasy have shown. Good vs Evil is all too often a lazy crutch, sadly.

Not that I don't LOVE smashing true Evil personally!  I do. NG Bards and Clerics and LG Paladins/Knights are my favourite PCs to play, and it is disappointing to me when I face someone supposedly evil but who merely seems kind of "bad".

The 2E Villain's Handbook is very good on this whole area.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 30, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> You don't need good and evil to make a conflict interesting or engaging, though, as so many fantasy authors outside High Fantasy have shown. Good vs Evil is all too often a lazy crutch, sadly.



No, indeed you don't. There are plenty of other conflicts.

The thing to me is that it's important that whatever evil there is, you don't half-ass it. I hate faux evil.


----------



## Celebrim (May 30, 2014)

Agamon said:


> That's not a "no", that's a "yes, but".




No, it's still a "No."  It just happens to be a "No, but..."

"Yes" would have been the wrong answer. "Yes" is not a universally better answer than "No".  "No" is a perfectly reasonable answer.


----------



## Agamon (May 30, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> No, it's still a "No."  It just happens to be a "No, but..."
> 
> "Yes" would have been the wrong answer. "Yes" is not a universally better answer than "No".  "No" is a perfectly reasonable answer.




It's all about presentation.  Note how I worded it:



			
				Agamon said:
			
		

> Sure you can probably get some sort of idea what's generally above from clues in the sewers, but to know exactly what's above you? Probably not.




You certainly could say, "No.  You might kinda know something, but what you're trying to do?  Definitely not."

One gives the player the sense that he has some sort of agency in the game without giving him carte blanche, the other looks like the GM flashing a big red stop sign, even though both are fundamentally saying the same thing.

I like that my players get to contribute to the story of the game, otherwise, I feel like I'm reading them my novel and I get bored quickly.  Sure, you need to reign in outrageous ideas, but even outrageous ideas have a kernel of plausibility somewhere in them.


----------



## Kinak (May 30, 2014)

> Don't be afraid to make them evil.



This is good advice, but kind of like salt: a little bit really helps bring out the more subtle flavors in your cooking, but if you add too much... everything just tastes like salt.

The occasional really vile villain stands out much better on a background of self-interested jerks, well-intentioned extremists, bigots, forces of nature, rivals for resources, misunderstandings, and good people who legitimately oppose the PCs' cause.

I tend to make all of my villains be heroes in their own minds (as absurd as those justifications may seem to outsiders), but the occasional villain who does vile things because they enjoy them adds a nice bit of contrast.

Not that I think I need to tell you that, [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]. Just thinking out loud.



Ruin Explorer said:


> The 2E Villain's Handbook is very good on this whole area.



This is indeed an excellent book. It's one of the handful of 2E products that I still read with anything but nostalgia. It's got a lot of good ideas.

Cheers!
Kinak


----------



## Celebrim (May 30, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> The thing to me is that it's important that whatever evil there is, you don't half-ass it. I hate faux evil.




Faux evil is bad.  But I hate faux good even more.

On the whole, I don't find modern culture has a problem representing bad.  Over the top scene chewing baby eating villains throwing rocks at puppies are pretty darn common.   Heck, GRR Martin _protagonizes_ a few of them, leading to a lot of fans going, "Hey wait a minute.. oh right, I forgot he was a monster.", or worse, never noticing that the guy they are rooting for _is_ a monster.

Actual good guys are hard to come by though.  Inevitably, good guys are one of two forms of lawful stupid - naïve types that just get abused by bad guys (unless they learn to be kick butt evil style) or else indistinguishable from the bad guys save for hat color and the fact that if anything they are more despicable (in which case you root for the guys in black hats).

Anti-villain versus the Grimdark BBEG is one of the two standard tropes of modern fiction.  The other is, "We have met the enemy and they are us."   Usually you get both.   Merely having one or the other is nice change of pace IMO.   

If I could get even as much nuance as Avatar the Last Airbender, I'd be happy.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 30, 2014)

[MENTION=6694112]Kinak[/MENTION]
No doubt. Moderation in all things.

I tend to have plenty of opposition forces be people acting in their own legitimate self-interests. Some are of alien mentalities (or are just mindless) and simply don't conform to human notions of morality. Others are pawns of greater evil forces that do their masters' bidding out of fear. Sometimes, they're just opportunists.

The example I was thinking of is a case where I had an undead nemesis play something like The Dark Knight's joker; an anarchist bent on destroying the world's order by force and persuading or coercing people to his cause. I was certainly uncomfortable with the idea of portraying a character whose villainy was manifest in hooking children on drugs or convincing people to sexually assault or murder each other. But the long and short of it is that if I'd dumbed the character down, it would have been insulting the players' intelligence, and it would have taken away both the threat level of the creature's presence and the satisfaction of its demise.

The important thing in terms of DMing advice is to understand that portraying something is not endorsing it. With a player, this distinction is clearer, but given the far-reaching influence of the DM, it's hard to get that nuance down that just because the authority figure at the table is acting evil in the guise of one particular NPC, it doesn't represent the entirety of the DM's thinking.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 30, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> Faux evil is bad.  But I hate faux good even more.



True. This being the DMing thread, talking about evil seems more natural. But having NPCs be the good guy just because is equally problematic.



> On the whole, I don't find modern culture has a problem representing bad.



Oh, I think we do. On one hand, there's simply a lack of stomach in a lot of cases. I understand not wanting to delve into graphic elements sometimes, but the more intellectual side gets dumbed down as well.

On the other hand, I see a lot of straw man portrayals of evil that are so blatant and obvious and lack rationale.


----------



## Bawylie (May 30, 2014)

I don't bother defining good or bad.  I give the NPCs motivations/impulses and goals/desires. 

Especially when it comes to non-humanoids, it's important for me to differentiate what they are by showing what they do (this goes back to mimesis, we were discussing earlier).


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 30, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> The thing to me is that it's important that whatever evil there is, you don't half-ass it. I hate faux evil.




Well, at least we agree on one thing! I know I've played with people who uncomfortable with really nasty evil (and I don't mean rape-y or genocidal or the like, just like, just utterly without remorse, utterly ruthless, do anything/kill anyone kind of evil), and prefer "Hollywood Evil", so I don't always push it that hard when DMing. Makes it stand out when I do, too!

Modern Western culture's problem with evil is complex - people are happy for it to be graphic as long as it's OTT or involves figures like terrorists and serial killers, but they're completely uncomfortable with stuff like routine, horrifying domestic violence, people starving because of greed, companies dumping terrifying waste with no care for the consequences, and any kind of evil that isn't "thrilling" on some level, that's just depressing/upsetting. So we ignore most of the evil in the world.

All that said I'm not sure that's necessarily a good topic for RPGs, either, unless the group is up for it.


----------



## Bawylie (May 30, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Now that the drive by snark fest has past, let us return to our Vader example.
> 
> Now imagine this in actual play. Vader's player had sunk tons of table time into this plan. He had to go to Bespin and cow Lando. Then set up the ambush and capture Han and the others. All of this leads into the Big Showdown. Fantastic battle ensues between Vader and Luke.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I respect my players' agency enough to let them fail when they make a bad decision. 

Vader's Player's problem wasn't his planning or his execution - all those things were well thought-out and competently executed. The failure was in misunderstanding the character of NPC Luke. Vader offered power when the available evidence suggested Luke's motivation was care for others. (Heck Vader's trap was baited by torturing Luke's friends). Vader's Player ought to have known better, but failed because he overplayed his hand.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 30, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> All that said I'm not sure that's necessarily a good topic for RPGs, either, unless the group is up for it.



In terms of DMing advice, I think GR's Advanced Gamemaster's Manual has the cleanest take on it, and sets up categories of "how far do you want to go".

The thing to me is to make that decision clear and abide by it consistently.


----------



## Celebrim (May 30, 2014)

Agamon said:


> It's all about presentation.




I'm a substance over style sort of guy.  For one thing, all I hear is you saying fundamentally the same thing.  The nuance in your presentation, I don't get.  

In any event, if this becomes a question of what you should actually say, it's neither "Yes." nor "No."  A good DM should recognize that the real problem here is that the player requesting to know exactly what is over his head through a solid object has become disengaged from the fiction.  So the real thing that you should say should be something in fiction to try to redirect the player back into the fiction.  Meanwhile, you should be trying to figure out why the character is disengaged from the fiction, which I would guess has something to do with player confusion about why they are in the sewers in the first place.

I'd probably say something like:

"Staring up at the roof of the sewer, you see only an unbroken arch of bricks held in place by what looks like some sort of concrete.  Cockroaches cling to the bricks by the dozens.  Attempting to bore through the bricks with your eyes reveals nothing.  The roof could be 5 feet thick or 5000 for all you can tell by looking at it.  Around you there is nothing but a slow moving stream of grey water about 12" deep, with fecal matter leisurely drifting back down the way you came.  To the sides there are 12" clay pipes at intervals of about every 30 yards and intersecting the main passage near the top.  A thin stream of water or urine drizzles down from the nearest one.  Everything reeks of ammonia and waste leaving you short of breath."

I'd cut that shorter depending on how much I'd already told them, or elaborate in a different way about the details of what they see.   In this case, there is no real need to say, "Yes or no."  You just narrate the consequences of their action.

There are all sorts of ways to interact with this scene:

a) You could attempt to listen for sounds coming from the ceiling or the side pipes.
b) You could analyze the feces.
c) You could probe around in the water for trash.
d) You could ask how long ago the bricks might have been laid.
e) You could cast an information gathering spell.
f) If the player has 'scent', 'deep sense' or other unique sensing abilities, you could prompt your DM for further information about the odors to see if you can discriminate anything other than the smells of usage, or remind your DM that you can 'feel' how far below ground you are (if he's forgotten).
g) You could beg for divine intervention.

The burden is on the players to tell you how they might learn something.  Once they have a plan, then you can ascertain whether they might learn something, which may or may not involve a skill check.

If the players are inept or inexperienced, you may need to prompt them with suggestions.   If the players are bored, you may need to prompt them to remember the clues they have that they aren't putting together, and you might need to scan your sewer encounter table for ideas that might advance the story out of its current rut.   That could be almost anything.  If your party has a druid, a wandering rat becomes a possible information channel.  Or, if the PCs have a retainer/henchmen, it might be time to open up a dialogue with the party through the NPC, "Remind me.  Why did we come down into this retched sewer again?"



> I like that my players get to contribute to the story of the game, otherwise, I feel like I'm reading them my novel and I get bored quickly.




Players contribute by proposing courses of action and asking pertinent questions about what they see.  Inept players have to be trained out of their passivity, incuriosity, and reluctance to engage what surrounds them.  Ironically, novice players - and particularly young players - rarely have these faults.  'Grown-ups' are more likely to be the ones that have forgotten how to play.



> Sure, you need to reign in outrageous ideas, but even outrageous ideas have a kernel of plausibility somewhere in them.




Plausibility might not even be the most important point.  What interests me most is why a player is offering outrageous ideas, and what sort of precedent I might be setting by going along with it.  Does he want more spot light?  Does he want his cunning or creativity validated?  Is he just not thinking things through, or forgotten a key point?  Is he bored and trying to make his own entertainment?  Have I failed to set the scene appropriately?  Is there something important in my mental picture I failed to mention.  Is there a key point I've forgotten, like say an iron grate in the ceiling through which you might catch glimpses of the town.  Is the current brainstorming likely to go anywhere?  Is he upset and deliberately trying to wreck play?  Am I putting improper focus on something that doesn't deserve it?  Is the player acting irrationally because for some reason he thinks this is what I 'want' him to do?  The real answer isn't "Yes" or "No", it's the answer to questions like, "What do I do to get my players to understand and properly interact with the scene that they are in?  How can I recapture the players attention?  Can I get the game moving again in a way that doesn't break suspension of disbelief?"  The real problem with an outrageous suggestion is that the player has clearly become disconnected from the character and the scene, and probably has gone mentally entirely verbal and doesn't 'see' what you've described or imagine themselves being in it.  

Usually my response is going to be trying to force the players imagination back in game.  Show don't tell.  I'm only going to go with an out of fiction answer like, "Yes" or "No", and an explanation if things are going terribly wrong.


----------



## Bawylie (May 30, 2014)

"Show; don't tell," is good. But what about another approach? 

If you believe your players are disengaged (and I don't think asking what's above them necessarily indicated disengagement, but let's assume it means that for now), then you could TELL, instead of show. 

Players asking "what's up above me in these sewers?" presumably want that information. Why not let them gloss over the boring bits and get what they want. Move to diegesis. 

"After some investigation, you conclude the only way to tell what's above you is to look. [Rogue] climbs the nearest drainage and peers about to discover blah blah blah." Then you go down periscope and ask what they do next. 

Or, go further. Tell how the sewer portion concludes and put them in the next scenario. Fast forward & change scenes.


----------



## Celebrim (May 30, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> "Show; don't tell," is good. But what about another approach?
> 
> If you believe your players are disengaged (and I don't think asking what's above them necessarily indicated disengagement, but let's assume it means that for now), then you could TELL, instead of show.




You can, and I didn't leave out that possibility, but that approach is fraught with danger.   



> Players asking "what's up above me in these sewers?" presumably want that information. Why not let them gloss over the boring bits and get what they want. Move to diegesis.
> 
> "After some investigation, you conclude the only way to tell what's above you is to look. [Rogue] climbs the nearest drainage and peers about to discover blah blah blah." Then you go down periscope and *ask what they do next*.




The danger is that this relationship has been inverted by your choice of diegesis.  You aren't really asking what they do next.  Rather, now you are training your players _to ask you what to do next_.  By opening a door for them, you're risking a situation where the party only knows how to advance by prompting you to tell them how they should advance.  They've become passengers.  It might be appropriate to provide prompting about how they can interact with the environment, but you have to understand that in doing so, you are more or less communicating to the players, "This is what you should do." or "This is what I want you to do."   Neither is necessarily the case, and in the later case, what I really want them to do is learn to take some initiative on their own or move the scene on in some manner.  

Worse, the very situation where it might be most appropriate to prompt the character how they might interact with something, that is - you have inexperienced players - is the very case where they might learn from this example not to do anything without prompting.

All of this is why I suggested looking for something organic to the environment as a means of prompting the change of scene.



> Or, go further. Tell how the sewer portion concludes and put them in the next scenario. Fast forward & change scenes.




This is also potentially a tool in the toolbox.  It could be the sewer is a distraction, a blind hunt because they missed important clues earlier, a wild goose chase, a red herring, or just the players thinking that because there is a sewer you must intend for them to go down to it (after all, every exit of a cRPG is just exactly that, something you are supposed to find and explore and will be rewarded for doing so).   So yes, you may need to do a scene bang of some sort to move the game along if it has stalled.  But that to carries dangers.  Hard scene framing are one important railroading technique, because again, you are effectively telling the players what they choose to do.  The players are once again passengers that you are picking up and moving along to their destination with no chance of disembarking from the ride save where you intend them do so.  

Again, I'm not even arguing that railroading is always bad.  But you ought to be cognizant of when you are doing it and what the potential pitfalls are.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?298368-Techniques-for-Railroading


----------



## Bawylie (May 30, 2014)

Hmmm...

I think you hit those pitfalls if you reframe scenarios unprompted. 

But working with your assumption, that the players have lost interest and are otherwise unengaged, we have tangible evidence that our current efforts aren't working. They gave US the prompt (What's above us?) and THEN we ran with it. This does not make them passengers (it would have done if we moved them unprompted). 

I'll assume a "Scene Bang" is some kind of Call to Action. Skipping ahead or glossing over parts that the players aren't interested in isn't a call to action. Its pacing. And it doesn't require choosing their actions for them. 

In a way, all you're really doing is skipping over crappy non-choices.  The scenario is already constructed such that they've chosen to accomplish a goal. Do you want to keep accomplishing? isn't a meaningful choice. So you don't force anything if you skip their unengaged rear-ends to a portion of the game where their actions have meaning. 

I'm reasonably sure scene bang is useless or worthless for framing in an RPG for that exact reason.


----------



## Bawylie (May 30, 2014)

I'll tell you what else, let's assume that a hypothetical doesn't have any unforeseen pitfalls apart from those established in the hypothetical. 

I've discussed alternatives to doubling-down on the current scene, and you came back with "What about newbies?" Come on. 

Now, if they ARE newbies, AND they're asking what's above them, there is NO harm in moving to a diegetic sequence and giving them the information they want. It's better than waiting while the blindly poke around until they guess the right thing to do. This would be extra-effective, if after giving them the information they want, you ask them what they do now. 

I believe that when players have all the information that's feasibly available, they are enabled and empowered to make informed decisions. 

Newbies do become "passengers" when faced with decisions that cannot be made except at random. "Where are we?" "You don't know - now do you want to go straight, right or left?" These are non-choices. They lack the context that would make them meaningful. 

So I'm not saying seize their agency - I'm saying empower them to decide and ask for their decision.


----------



## Celebrim (May 30, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> I think you hit those pitfalls if you reframe scenarios unprompted.




I believe that you did.  You knew the player wanted to know what was above him, so you told him not only, "You can find out by climbing up a pipe." but that he did in fact climb up a pipe (and back down again to say what's he's seen).  That's two choices you are making for the player without player prompts.   And while it might have low harm in this case if its the thing the player would have done himself and the question of, "Can I squeeze up the pipe safely?" is, "Yes.", it's I think a bad habit to get into as a DM because it tends to lead to players that expect you to provide their actions and DMs that gloss over opportunities for player input without thinking about it.   For example, I've one player in the party whose character would almost certainly look around, loot, and then come back down.



> They gave US the prompt (What's above us?) and THEN we ran with it. This does not make them passengers (it would have done if we moved them unprompted).




I think you ran too far with it without passing it back.  In fact, I'm not sure that on the whole you should have caught the ball in the first place.  



> I'll assume a "Scene Bang" is some kind of Call to Action.




Yes, it's when you skip ahead to a meaningful choice or scenario.  It's not a bad idea and everyone does it to some extent for the sake of, as you say, pacing, but in scene frame that is non-continuous and not explicitly authorized by player intent risks glossing over player choice.  It's almost always in a DM's interest to wait for clear consent, stopping and saying, "The corridor continues forward without feature as far as your light allows.  Do you want to follow it until you find something?" and even, "Four hundred yards later, the corridor is as straight as ever, about how far do you want to walk before considering turning back?



> In a way, all you're really doing is skipping over crappy non-choices.




Ideally yes, but all too often the same technique is used to consciously or unconsciously steer the players into making the choice the GM wants.



> So you don't force anything if you skip their unengaged rear-ends to a portion of the game where their actions have meaning.




If the situation is linear, I suppose so.  But if there are 6 or 60 different approaches, opening one door means leaving the other 5 or 59 closed (and often invisibly closed).  



> I'm reasonably sure scene bang is useless or worthless for framing in an RPG for that exact reason.




I don't use explicit bangs very often for that reason.  But, sometimes its appropriate.  For example, if the PC's propose to undertake long distance travel, anything that potentially breaks up the monotony of that journey before they reach the destination is basically a hard scene frame and a bang.  "Your ship is attacked by Pirates!  Now what?"   If the players propose to walk across town, and they run into a brawl between members of the masons guild and the teamsters guild, that's a bang.  Everyone uses them when the group has agreed to a handwave, but you as GM know or discover that something happens before the completion of the handwave.

I try to avoid it and play with more continuous framing otherwise.



> I've discussed alternatives to doubling-down on the current scene, and you came back with "What about newbies?" Come on.




I think you misunderstand.  I think your opening a door out of the scene and/or shoving them through it is most appropriate with newbies, but perversely most likely to go wrong if you make a pattern of it.  With experienced players, I wouldn't advice as much hand holding as you are suggesting.   And in any event, I wouldn't handwave a player action without explicit permission.



> Now, if they ARE newbies, AND they're asking what's above them, there is NO harm in moving to a diegetic sequence and giving them the information they want. It's better than waiting while the blindly poke around until they guess the right thing to do. This would be extra-effective, if after giving them the information they want, you ask them what they do now.




Again, I agree.  If you are going to prompt players to take action, it's newbs that most justify you doing so.  I said that back in the original post that started this subthread.  But I don't agree that there is no potential harm.



> I believe that when players have all the information that's feasibly available, they are enabled and empowered to make informed decisions.




I believe you risk linearity and false choices by pushing solutions on the players in the guise of informing them.



> Newbies do become "passengers" when faced with decisions that cannot be made except at random. "Where are we?" "You don't know - now do you want to go straight, right or left?" These are non-choices. They lack the context that would make them meaningful.




If you'd read the thread I linked to above, you would have discovered that I advocated judicious use of railroading techniques 4 years ago and with abundant discussion of my reasoning and how to do it artfully, precisely for the reason you are bringing up here.



> So I'm not saying seize their agency - I'm saying empower them to decide and ask for their decision.




Whenever you hint to the player what they should do, or push the player to do a particular thing, or narrate to the player what they did without the player actually proposing to do it, you risk seizing player agency.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 30, 2014)

Hussar said:


> No one asked you to read the thread JC.





Hussar said:


> Now that the drive by snark fest has past



You were talking about yourself, right? Because nobody is that unaware.


----------



## Bawylie (May 30, 2014)

I did read the thread. I don't have to quote from it or refer to it to make a point. 

Why do you assume that by changing dramatic mode, a DM is hinting at what they want a player to do?

I don't care what they do. That's their job. Mine is to find out what they want and place obstacles between them and it.


----------



## Hussar (May 31, 2014)

I wonder if the issue is related to the control of flow of information. The players want to know where they are in the city but they also want to minimize risk. 

The DM otoh generally wants to increase risk because that makes for an exciting game. 

So the DM rules that the pc's cannot know their location in the city. A perfectly reasonable answer which nicely dovetails with what the DM wants. 

The problem now though is the players can't make an informed decision and assume that if the go up and check, they will be caught or otherwise engaged in some problem. 

What's wrong with giving the players what they asked for at this point?  They've indicated that they don't want an encounter at this point, so what's wrong with just giving them
What they asked for and moving on?


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> I don't bother defining good or bad.  I give the NPCs motivations/impulses and goals/desires.



Likewise.



Bawylie said:


> mimesis is the representation of an internally consistent game world that is portrayed according to its nature (along with any elements therein).
> 
> And that for purposes of RPGs, diegesis is the assumption of narrative control outside of the mimetic frame.
> 
> So you have a world that, by default, operates according to its nature except where a player or DM exercises some power to author the situation.



This is an interesting conceptual framework.

Translating it into my own terms that I'm more familiar with, I relate your "mimesis" to my sense of genre expectations plus "common sense" determining the general course of events, with the GM's authority to frame situations and narrate outcomes in accordance with the action resolution mechanics providing the "diegnesis" component of interjected content.



Bawylie said:


> I wasn't clear enough when I said he was spared by Deus ex Machina. See, he chose death rather than evil and dropped what is established as a lethal distance (functionally bottomless).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



An interesting example.

The closest I can recall coming to this scenario in actual play was around 6 years ago, at the climax of a long-running Rolemaster campaign. The PCs had finally achieved their goal of entering into the outer void to defeat an elder evil who resided there. The evil being had been held at bay for eons by the efforts of a warrior god, who in the mortal world was a dead god, having heroically sacrificed himself to prevent the elder evil breaking through the walls of reality, but who in the parallel dimension of the outer void was locked in an eternal struggle with the evil being, forever suffering and dying without relief. The PCs has first encountered echoes of the dead god around 10 or more levels ago (so probably 4-odd years of play earlier) and they had been a recurring feature in play and an increasing focus of the players' efforts. One of the PCs in particular - the paladin - had become dedicated to freeing the "dead" god from his entrapment in the never-ending voidal war.

So when they broke through into the void, and beat the elder evil, they knew it couldn't last. They couldn't escape the eternal cycle of entrapment anymore than the dead god could. And so, in order to free the dead god, the paladin decided to take his place. And this was a free and deliberate choice by the player of that PC, to sacrifice his character in order to end the suffering of an NPC, the dead god.

Then we reconvened for the next session. And the players had been discussing, and discussed further during the session, and they came up with an alternative plan: first, the PC wizards would pool their spell abilities to create a simulacrum of the paladin (this was straightforward spellcasting mechanics, though in a moderately intricate combination - in 3E terms think a subtle combination of spells and meta-magic effects); then, they would trick a fallen Lord of Karma into using an artefact they had custody of (the Soul Totem) to create a full karmic replica of the paladin in his simulacrum, so that it would have the metaphysical capacity to take the dead god's place in the eternal fight within the void.

Tricking the fallen Lord of Karma was again mechanical in resolution (using the game's social mechanics) but using the artefact in that way was not mechanical. The artefact was a story element with no mechanical definition, and the players' plan was an extrapolation from that established story. As GM, I had to decide whether or not it could work. And I decided that it could - the extrapolation was a natural one that followed completely naturally from what had gone before, and to decide otherwise would actually have contradicted pre-established story elements about the function of the artefact and the reason the various Lords of Karma had fallen in the first place.

So the campaign had a happy ending rather than a sad one: the "dead" god was freed from the void, his place taken by a karmically-laden simulacrum. The player of the paladin was able to narrate his PC's endgame in the more idyllic terms he had hoped for, of founding a monastery dedicated to the dead god, located in what had been a lighthouse built on an island that was in fact the giant "stone" body of the "dead" god in his final resting place on the mortal world before entering into the void.



Bawylie said:


> Let's leave Luke and assume Vader is the PC. Vaders goal is recruitment of his son, and accumulation of power. He's defeated Luke (an NPC) and put him in a bind. Does Vader's player roll to see whether Luke joins him? Is that what diplomacy checks are for? I don't think so. So I don't dip into the rules. Instead, I rely on Luke's nature. Vader tells me he wants to seduce or manipulate Luke into joining him. And, he's clearly got leverage. Luke's beaten and has no escape route. However, I know Luke cannot be corrupted in this way and Vader doesn't even get a cha-check. This is an auto-fail. I simply play Luke true to himself. He falls. Vader's player curses as he's just let his whole goal slip from his grasp. This could be game over for Vader, but later, I tell him he senses his son in the force, alive, and reaching out for him. I've played Luke mimetically, and then turned diegetic to re-up Vader's player on his quest. I turned a total fail into a setback. Vader redoubles his resolve. No system.



On this example I think I'm closer to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. I would be hesitant to narrate an auto-fail for the player, even with the sort of backup option you describe.

The closest I've come to this was in a session earlier this year. The PC, a servant both of Vecna and of the Raven Queen, had taken temporary control of a pool of dead souls. He was expecting them to begin flowing to the Raven Queen, but then became aware that Vecna was trying to intervene and steal them. The medium that Vecna was using was the PC's imp familiar, which had the Eye of Vecna implanted in it. The player had to choose whether his PC let Vecna have them, or redirected them to the Raven Queen. He chose the latter. And (as GM) I decided that Vecna punished him by channelling his fury through his Eye, killing the imp.

One consideration that was crucial to my decision was that the player knew that he was choosing to cross Vecna; knew that the Eye was in his imp and that Vecna was using this as a conduit; and had [urhttp://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?348410-Should-this-PC-implant-the-Eye-of-Vecna]deliberately implanted the Eye in his imp rather than himself[/url] precisely to be able to draw upon its powers without running the risk of being punished by Vecna himself.

If your Vader scenario had these sorts of elements, I might adjudicate more along the lines you describe.



Bawylie said:


> I still don't call for rolls when actions will automatically succeed or fail. I just say what happens next. In this scenario, Luke cannot be seduced or manipulated in the fashion Vader attempted.





Bawylie said:


> Vader's Player's problem wasn't his planning or his execution - all those things were well thought-out and competently executed. The failure was in misunderstanding the character of NPC Luke. Vader offered power when the available evidence suggested Luke's motivation was care for others. (Heck Vader's trap was baited by torturing Luke's friends). Vader's Player ought to have known better, but failed because he overplayed his hand.



This all relates to the same point - player knowledge. I would be hesitant to have the player learn whether or not his/her plan can succeed, in virtue of the gameworld backstory, only at the point of resolution. I generally prefer to have the players make their choices against a backdrop of known story elements, but in which they can't achieve everything they want (or, at least, not easily or obviously).

In your most recent posts discussing player knowledge with [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], I agree with what you're saying.



Bawylie said:


> Leave Vader aside. Can a non-magical class cast a spell if the dice come up right? Or is it impossible?
> 
> Can a character with +50 in athletics jump a mile or is it impossible? Can he fail to jump a foot? Or is it automatic?
> 
> Do you allow for any action to have automatic success or fail conditions - or is that all failure of imagination?



In these cases the players have knowledge. The question of player knowledge is important for me.


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2014)

Hussar said:


> The players want to know where they are in the city but they also want to minimize risk.
> 
> The DM otoh generally wants to increase risk because that makes for an exciting game.
> 
> ...



Good post, but sorry no XP for you at this time.


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2014)

JamesonCourage said:


> These threads just get amusing once the usual suspects get involved.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I was interested in seeing (i) who else has comments and/or experiences of the Moldvay advice (in particularly, I was wondering if [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] would drop by with any thoughts), and (ii) seeing what people think of the idea that "there's always a chance", and how they apply that idea (or don't) in their games.

 [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] has addressed that with some interesting examples, that I've responded to a couple of posts above this. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] also made a good post about techniques for managing information without violating the fiction (by the GM narrating the PCs sticking their heads up for a quick look) that I just replied to.

I'm sorry you don't like the thread, but I'm not sorry I started it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 31, 2014)

pemerton said:


> Good post, but sorry no XP for you at this time.




Covered.

And on a tangent, people have been talking about saying yes, no, yes and, and the rest.  To me adding a modifier after the yes or no (so you have "Yes, and", "Yes, but", and "No, but" is probably more important than whether the answer itself is yes or no.  I leave the fourth one, the "No, and" out because in my experience 90% of the time I'm tempted to reply "No, and" (other than as the result of a botched dice roll) I should probably stop to check that I'm on the same page with my players.  (And on a tangent off this tangent, the reason I love Marvel Heroic and the rest of the Cortex Plus family is they produce the and or but results very readily - and Apocalypse World produces a lot of yes, but results and often lets the player choose the but).


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 31, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> I don't bother defining good or bad.  I give the NPCs motivations/impulses and goals/desires.
> 
> Especially when it comes to non-humanoids, it's important for me to differentiate what they are by showing what they do (this goes back to mimesis, we were discussing earlier).



While I share that philosophy to an extent, it is difficult to do in most versions of D&D which have alignment-based magical effects. You either have to find a way to work with detecting/smiting evil and the like (which requires you to label everyone with alignments), or just ban that stuff.


----------



## Agamon (May 31, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> While I share that philosophy to an extent, it is difficult to do in most versions of D&D which have alignment-based magical effects. You either have to find a way to work with detecting/smiting evil and the like (which requires you to label everyone with alignments), or just ban that stuff.




One of the best parts of 5e is that this isn't an issue.  It took some time for me to realise that it wasn't alignment itself I disliked so much as this aspect of it.


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> the reason I love Marvel Heroic and the rest of the Cortex Plus family is they produce the and or but results very readily



I've only GMed one session of MHRP. Can you elaborate on this?


----------



## Cyberen (May 31, 2014)

In " DM 101" : Don't get enamored with your tools.
DMPC and solipsistic worldbuilding are frequent symptoms of bad DMing.
Regarding Luke vs Vader, I think the situation doesn't sit well within D&D scope, genre-wise and system-wise (compared to Amber Diceless or Vampire, for instance). My favourite way of handling this would be to build both protagonists as PCs, thus not interfering with the resolution. If Luke is a PC and Vader the NPC, I guess the player is entitled a free Get Out of Jail card because of my major screwing with his background (ad hoc replacement of meta game currencies such as Fate points). If Vader is a PC and Luke a NPC, I am with Moldvay and Gygax and would randomize the outcome. The dice are the embodiment of fate, and offer a cop out of the "mother may I ?" conundrum. I think some kind of Skill Challenge framework would be relevant, as it tends to preserve player agenda, stages the information flow, and yields to results both richer and more consistent than the  "roll percentile dice and pray to roll high" method described by Moldvay.
In the D&D framework, I think "level appropriateness" is a key factor when adjudicating. A low level delver jumping into a chasm should probably die.
A mid level character could survive (I think the falling rules are ok... in this specific case). For a name level character, Obscure Death comes in handy : the character is out of the fight, but might come back if the player wants. Remember Feather Fall is only a 1st level effect.

For the "sewer exploration dilemma", I would say it is a matter of choosing between "Dungeon Mode" and "Travel Mode". It's definitely a table thing, rather than a DM decision.


----------



## Sadras (May 31, 2014)

@_*Celebrim*_ great post #64- can't XP at this time 



Bawylie said:


> Yeah, I respect my players' agency enough to let them fail when they make a bad decision.




I agree with this.



Hussar said:


> What's wrong with giving the players what they asked for at this point? They've indicated that they don't want an encounter at this point, so what's wrong with just giving them what they asked for and moving on?




If memory serves me, the original poster's reason was that the PCs genuinely had no idea where they were in this new city. Are you suggesting the DM suddenly breaks immersion (for himself at least) and feeds players information just to keep the story going? As a DM I do not find it appealing. Like Abed in Community said "I have to remain objective, otherwise the game has no meaning" 
You see it hasn't come down to the luck of die like in combat, where we as DMs might fudge once in a while, its come down to character decision-making which has brought them to be lost in the sewers.
Surely they could have done their research - purchasing maps of the town & maps of the sewers and began tracking their movement or attempt to get a guide (cleaner, architect, perhaps a sewer kid..etc) They didn't think it through, they fracked up, lets not defend the PCs here. Consequences of decision making...this is starting to sound familiar  




pemerton said:


> This all relates to the same point - player knowledge. I would be hesitant to have the player learn whether or not his/her plan can succeed, in virtue of the gameworld backstory, only at the point of resolution. I generally prefer to have the players make their choices against a backdrop of known story elements, but in which they can't achieve everything they want (or, at least, not easily or obviously).




What is your opinion in the instance where PCs misread the desires/motivations of the NPC? Surely characters can be wrong? Do we as DMs have to spoon feed the PCs so that all information is readily available and known?
I agree we should at least hint at the information/knowledge is out there, but to only rule on whether a PC can be wrong if they have had all the knowledge known, is not something I subscribe to, gameworld backstory inclusive.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 31, 2014)

Another interesting (and oft-ignored) source of advice:


			
				Complete Arcane said:
			
		

> Finding new ways to challenge your players without resorting to capricious and arbitrary limitations on magical power can be a daunting task, and many DMs find themselves at one point or another treating the increasing capabilities of arcane spellcasters in their game as a trial to be overcome one spell at a time: monsters with blindsight and scent limiting the utility of _invisibility_; villains wearing _rings of mind shielding_ to ensure the PCs can't easily scry them; _greater dispel magic_ suddenly becoming the only spell your NPC wizard villains know how to cast; and so on.
> 
> This approach can too easily turn the campaign into an arcane arms race between the mages' capabilities and your own inventiveness. Even worse, it can trivialize the characters' accomplishments-if there's no advantage or benefit to having labored long and hard to add _teleport_ to a spell list, why bother trying? You have to allow arcane spellcasters to use their new abilities, and let your game evolve accordingly as their power grows.



It goes on to provide a variety of common-sense advice for dealing with some of the more commonly game-breaking effects. Turns out, they're not really all that game-breaking. Surprise!

To a new DM though, it is a very important to just kind of reason through these things, as the implications of magic do require some thought.


----------



## Emerikol (May 31, 2014)

Interesting discussion.  I'm going to have to check out all D&D more often.

I think the choices you make in response to this thread is largely about your playstyle.

For me I want my players to...
Know what their characters know.
Be motivated by their characters motivations.
Avoid any metagaming.
Be tied closely to the setting in many ways.

For me the DMs job is....
Provide an engaging setting.
Help tie the PCs to the setting.
Objectively adjudicate the setting.

I achieve these goals by...
Doing the prep work.  Know the river is at the bottom of the chasm.
Play the NPCs independently using THEIR predefined motivations.
Encouraging relationships that matter between npcs and the pcs.
Make your npcs have a personality!!

I never want to do anything that breaks the immersion of the players if I can avoid it.


----------



## Emerikol (May 31, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Another interesting (and oft-ignored) source of advice:
> It goes on to provide a variety of common-sense advice for dealing with some of the more commonly game-breaking effects. Turns out, they're not really all that game-breaking. Surprise!
> 
> To a new DM though, it is a very important to just kind of reason through these things, as the implications of magic do require some thought.




My goal is to play the Npc true to type.  

If arms race behavior makes sense then it happens.
If not then it doesn't.

I try to stay true to setting and Npc background and experience.


----------



## Mallus (May 31, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> To a new DM though, it is a very important to just kind of reason through these things, as the implications of magic do require some thought.



The trouble with this is that D&D magic is a collection of spells & effects drawn from a wide variety of fictional & mythical sources, many of which were explicitly designed to be dungeon-exploring/problem-solving tools, collected over the course of several decades now. 

ie - it's a bit of a mess. A big, honking mess (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Add to that the fact D&D magic is supposed to exist in settings which happen resemble the worlds of classic fantasy fiction & film, if not actual medieval Western Europe.

ie - worlds different from what would reasonably result from D&D magic existing.

I'd say "reason" isn't the best tool in this situation. I'd go with "a talent for rationalization & clever BS".

It's best that a beginner DM not get caught up trying to beat the inherently illogical into a logical shape. That way lies madness, or simulationism. Take your pick.

edit: I've found the best way to handle the logical implications of D&D magic is with tongue jammed firmly into cheek, using the spirit of Lewis Carroll as your guide. Then again, I may just be a sucker for the parody of logic.


----------



## pemerton (May 31, 2014)

Emerikol, thanks for checking out the thread.



Emerikol said:


> I never want to do anything that breaks the immersion of the players if I can avoid it.



I agree with this - but I think we have different approaches to doing this.



Emerikol said:


> I think the choices you make in response to this thread is largely about your playstyle.
> 
> For me I want my players to...
> Know what their characters know.
> ...



I agree with you that it's about playstyle. That was pat of my reason for starting the thread, to see what different people thought about these different approaches.

The bit about NPCs is interesting. I tend to prefer to leave NPCs flexible in their details and motivations, to be concretised in play as part of action resolution.



Sadras said:


> If memory serves me, the original poster's reason was that the PCs genuinely had no idea where they were in this new city. Are you suggesting the DM suddenly breaks immersion (for himself at least) and feeds players information just to keep the story going?



I would do this, yes, absolutely. Without informatioin the players can't engage the game. If it turns out that they don't have enough, my solution is to give them more!

There are a range of techniques for doing this. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s suggested one.



Sadras said:


> Surely they could have done their research - purchasing maps of the town & maps of the sewers and began tracking their movement or attempt to get a guide (cleaner, architect, perhaps a sewer kid..etc) They didn't think it through, they fracked up, lets not defend the PCs here.



For me, at least, my focus is not primarily on the PCs but on the players. If the game is stalling, that's something I want to rectify.

The research/guide thing isn't a solution for all styles - some tables prefer a "boots and all" approach (say, like an X-Men comic or an REH Conan story), in which the PCs jump into the situation and muddle things through.



Sadras said:


> What is your opinion in the instance where PCs misread the desires/motivations of the NPC? Surely characters can be wrong? Do we as DMs have to spoon feed the PCs so that all information is readily available and known?



Do you mean "PC" or "player"? I assume the latter.

This relates to Emerikol's comment about NPC motivations. I tend to prefer to keep them flexible in the backstory, so they can be used to keep things moving forward during actual play. If the player declares that his/her PC is going to try and turn Luke, and is sincere about making the attempt (ie it's not the player deliberately playing his/her PC as mistaken), then I would prefer to frame it as a skill check and narrate the details of Luke's character around the outcomes of that. (In the other thread I posted an example of a social conflict from my campaign that illustrates the technique I mean.)


----------



## Sadras (May 31, 2014)

pemerton said:


> For me, at least, my focus is not primarily on the PCs but on the players. If the game is stalling, that's something I want to rectify.




Sure 100%. 



> The research/guide thing isn't a solution for all styles - some tables prefer a "boots and all" approach (say, like an X-Men comic or an REH Conan story), in which the PCs jump into the situation and muddle things through.




Yeah, personally I'm not good with the latter table approach. I'd be lost. I mean, what if your PCs went mountain climbing and forgot to purchase the rope, grapping hook, map...etc Is equipment out the window too or just the research/guide thing? I guess our table prefers the grittier more natural approach, than the devil may care mess. Even our XP rewards lean far heavier on travel, new experiences, research, social interactions, meeting new persona as opposed to primarily combat.
Both styles work of course, I just do not think it was fair to ask for the DM to yield information in that sewer situation having not identified his or the group's playstyle. This all is interesting because I think you could easier adapt to my group (research/guide/equipment) as they would just give you more to work with as a storyteller, than if I would to your PC group (muddling things through).



> Do you mean "PC" or "player"? I assume the latter.




Sure via extension the character. Player doesn't do the thinking, the character doesnt to his homework.



> This relates to Emerikol's comment about NPC motivations. I tend to prefer to keep them flexible in the backstory, so they can be used to keep things moving forward during actual play. If the player declares that his/her PC is going to try and turn Luke, and is sincere about making the attempt (ie it's not the player deliberately playing his/her PC as mistaken), then I would prefer to frame it as a skill check and narrate the details of Luke's character around the outcomes of that. (In the other thread I posted an example of a social conflict from my campaign that illustrates the technique I mean.)




From the above the equation one can formulate..
(PC Knowledge + Abillities) x Sincere Attempt = Possible Skill Check with Success/Failure as an Outcome 

where,



> Without information the players can't engage the game. If it turns out that they don't have enough, my solution is to give them more!



​
PC Knowledge = Adequate Knowledge 

Right, so ignoring the Luke/Vader scenario and going back to the sewage one as I feel they run somewhat parallel:
Your PCs miss your intial clues to get required knowledge (i.e. they ignore the town's library archives), you continue to adapt the story so that the PCs acquire the information anyways (they bump into an old retired architect's assistant at a tavern), or (they find a kid in the sewers that guides them) or (they hear the gong of a church bell, knowing where they are in the sewers). So something along those lines?
Continually pushing the storyline forward, minimising setbacks and overlooking the Players/Characters "oversights"


----------



## Gilladian (May 31, 2014)

I guess in this sewer situation, my solution to "you don't know where you are in the sewers" would be to then offer them several options for finding out, without negating their current choices/decisions.

1) you observe a grating in the roof of the sewer wherein a dim trickle of daylight filters down. If you climb up, you may see something. But did you bring climbing gear?
2) you heard voices 2 intersections back. It might have been a cleaning/maintenance crew, or maybe it was a group of rogues. Do you want to double back and find them?
3) there could be critters in the sewers. You've seen rats and that one gator. Could you get info from them, somehow?

I might not phrase each choice quite so bluntly, and I might not bother with one of these options if I knew they had no way to use it (ie no druid or ranger with animal communication skills). But I do think when the PCs ask for something it is incumbent on the DM to offer them a chance to figure out a way to reach their goal. NOT offer them the answer on a plate, not break immersion totally, but give them a choice, or remind them of a choice they've forgotten/ignored. It's a game, we're here to have fun, and it doesn't hurt to be a little generous now and then.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 31, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> My goal is to play the Npc true to type.
> 
> If arms race behavior makes sense then it happens.
> If not then it doesn't.
> ...



A valid point. If the NPCs are specifically aware of the PCs' capabilities, an arms races is natural. There's also a general one-upsmanship occurring as everyone tries to get the best powers and shore up their defenses.

It only becomes problematic when there's a metagame aspect added, where the DM goes beyond what's reasonable in the context of the world.


----------



## Hussar (May 31, 2014)

A thought about the Luke as NPC example. 

I'd prefer that Luke's character develop in play rather than be pre-determined. Is it possible to turn Luke to the dark side should be determined in play. 

If the Vader PC fails, then
Yes, Luke is not turnable. Otoh, if Vader succeeds, then Luke's feelings aren't so carved in stone.

I guess, at the end of the day, I don't see any inherent superiority over letting the story follow the trilogy over departing from canon and starting a new story where Luke and Vader team up to usurp the Emperor. Or maybe chase down Leia only to see Vader redeem himself. Or any of a number of alternate scenarios.  

Which, if you predetermine results, can never occur.


----------



## Bawylie (May 31, 2014)

Yes it can. That's absurd.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 31, 2014)

Agamon said:


> One of the best parts of 5e is that this isn't an issue.  It took some time for me to realise that it wasn't alignment itself I disliked so much as this aspect of it.




Hah, yes.  There's nothing wrong with codes of beliefs as long as they aren't being hammered home by the mechanics, so they just provide guidance.  If you take the codes as being given by the Gods or even the mortals and the alignments as alliances of people who believe _roughly_ the same thing it works.



pemerton said:


> I've only GMed one session of MHRP. Can you elaborate on this?




It's possibly that the first Cortex+ game I played was Leverage, and that informs my play for the other games in the family.  But each time there's a 1 in your dice pool in MHRP it adds to the Doom Pool.  In Leverage (and, for that matter, Firefly) it creates or worsens a _Complication_.  Which is a thing present in the game world (some times I don't reveal the complication, and I occasionally hold them back as a marker for when I know what they are).  Or an asset for NPCs getting 1s.  And I treat the adds to the Doom Pool in almost the same way; when there's a 1 and so a dice added or increased in the Doom Pool I describe something happening.

(On a tangent, it's interesting how different the Leverage method of overcoming complications in one go makes the game feel from Firefly's slowly countering them with enough successes so you're always struggling against your Complications).



Sadras said:


> If memory serves me, the original poster's reason was that the PCs genuinely had no idea where they were in this new city. Are you suggesting the DM suddenly breaks immersion (for himself at least) and feeds players information just to keep the story going?
> As a DM I do not find it appealing. Like Abed in Community said "I have to remain objective, otherwise the game has no meaning"




As a fairly seasoned traveller, the idea that I have no idea where I am in a new city is ... anti-immersive.  Sure, I can get lost in rabbit warrens.  But I'm trying to remember the last time I came to a new city, got lost, and was unable to at least trace my way to a _local_ centre.  (I don't mean the city centre in a city with suburbs - I mean the local one).  Half the time I can't even say how I do it, but it's something to do with traffic flows and person density.  I also am very much aware that the source of information that the player of a character gets is a very narrow datastream, roughly the equivalent to a blind person with no sense of smell and a physical bubble around them being told what is going on by an interpreter.  Seriously, in the real world I have five senses.  And in unusual situations I use them all.  In an RPG I am forced to rely on the very few things the DM is saying.  A picture is worth a thousand words - with more if you have movement.  A book on tape is recorded at 150-160wpm.  Which means that to be worth what I would get from a single physical glance, the average DM needs to talk for around six minutes.

The single greatest impediment to immersion is just how little information is actually provided by the DM.  For that matter how little information can be provided by the DM.  This is why I'm in favour of games where information flows both ways - they are far more immersive because they allow for much easier matching between visualisations.

As for DM's immersion, this is not a priority.  If a DM is immersed in someone's head, they need to get out of it.  They won't stay for long.  If a DM is immersed because of the consistency of the world they've probably built a planet of the hats.  The real world is too big for one person to understand.  So I want to know what you mean by "immersion" for the DM unless you're using it as a synonym for flow.



> Surely they could have done their research - purchasing maps of the town & maps of the sewers and began tracking their movement or attempt to get a guide (cleaner, architect, perhaps a sewer kid..etc) They didn't think it through, they fracked up, lets not defend the PCs here. Consequences of decision making...this is starting to sound familiar




Possibly they could and didn't.  But that is no reason to punish them for not being able to use their physical senses because even Oculus Rift doesn't provide that much information.  And if they ed up normally they know it and accept it.  Or feel they were stampeeded in the preparation.  But there is also "Zipper DMing" - if you didn't specify that you put your junk away before you did your zipper up, your junk gets caught in your zipper.  Assuming that the PCs didn't take basic precautions when they had the time to is frequently poor DMing.



> What is your opinion in the instance where PCs misread the desires/motivations of the NPC? Surely characters can be wrong? Do we as DMs have to spoon feed the PCs so that all information is readily available and known?




Case by case.  When I talk to someone in real life I have the advantage of reading their body language, hearing their tone, and knowing the cultural context they are coming from.  When I am playing a PC I can't always do any of those depending on the DM.  And then if I am playing a cleric I'm probably playing someone far better at reading people than I myself am.

Making up for the tiny channel you as a DM use is not spoon feeding the PCs.  It's not destroying immersion by being either deliberately or accidentally secretive.  Failing to communicate your game world is not a sign that you are DMing well.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 31, 2014)

Mallus said:


> The trouble with this is that D&D magic is a collection of spells & effects drawn from a wide variety of fictional & mythical sources, many of which were explicitly designed to be dungeon-exploring/problem-solving tools, collected over the course of several decades now.
> 
> ie - it's a bit of a mess. A big, honking mess (not that there's anything wrong with that).
> 
> ...



It reminds me in many ways of Star Trek, which is likewise a patchwork of technological "magic" with equally far-reaching implications.

I do think you're fudging on some level, because of course truly playing everything all out is impossible. I think the point is that if you make common-sense assumptions necessary to play the game, things fall into place. If we were playing a Star Trek rpg, you wouldn't be able to transport into a bank and rob it. In D&D, you can't teleport into a bank and rob it. Why? Either wealth isn't stored that way, or it's protected somehow. What rationale you come up with is less important than the simple fact that when a player tries to use the supernatural travel method of choice to lay waste to the world's economy, that isn't going to work.

If you haven't thought about it, it might not be obvious, and a DM might read the Teleport spell, see nothing in the spell description itself to invalidate this type of plan, and let it go forward. Thus, advice.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (May 31, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> It reminds me in many ways of Star Trek, which is likewise a patchwork of technological "magic" with equally far-reaching implications.
> 
> I do think you're fudging on some level, because of course truly playing everything all out is impossible. I think the point is that if you make common-sense assumptions necessary to play the game, things fall into place. If we were playing a Star Trek rpg, you wouldn't be able to transport into a bank and rob it. In D&D, you can't teleport into a bank and rob it. Why? Either wealth isn't stored that way, or it's protected somehow. What rationale you come up with is less important than the simple fact that when a player tries to use the supernatural travel method of choice to lay waste to the world's economy, that isn't going to work.
> 
> If you haven't thought about it, it might not be obvious, and a DM might read the Teleport spell, see nothing in the spell description itself to invalidate this type of plan, and let it go forward. Thus, advice.




That's a good analogy.

However, I wouldn't say you necessarily couldn't do that in all D&D settings - how common Teleport is, how real a threat it is relative to other threats, and how worthwhile protecting against, it is, matters. If a handful of Wizards in the world can cast it, banks probably rate protecting against it similarly to protecting against tunnelling or the like IRL - which is to say it's low on the priority list - but if the bank is big enough, they will have it.

Further, banks in medieval settings are typically protected more by reputation than defences - after all, no bank can stop a few dozen soldiers getting together and robbing it - but if it's owned by the crown and it's known that vengeance will follow, they will likely be discouraged.

That said, if it's just a straightforward and reasonably-priced spell or ritual to ward an area against teleportation or similar magic, then that'll be done.

I totally disagree with your suggestion that the rationale doesn't matter though - on the contrary, the rationale is more important than preventing a PC getting a lot of cash/ Which, let's be real, he won't even be easily able to spend - you need to think about the consequences of actions, not just preventing actions with DM fiat - all that stolen money will have to be spent very carefully if he doesn't want literally hundred of angry assassins, curses, dragons and so on descending upon him - so carefully, in fact, that's probably his life's work.

So I would suggest two things:

1) Just using DM fiat to block things is very short-sighted DMing. When the player or PCs comes up with a terrible plan like this, just spend some time thinking through the consequences, and, if you want, hint at those consequences (as in reality, the PC would have hours or days to think about it, not the minutes they likely do at the table), and if they go through with it, inflict those consequences. And smile. 

2) If you do need to use DM fiat (I know you hate this term, but that's what it is, and sometimes it's right to use it!) to block something on the fly, stop and think through the consequences for the setting. You don't want to have a setting that is a godawful mess like Star Trek, where nonsense-particles are used by terrible, shamefully bad script-writers to arbitrarily inflict scenarios which make no sense on the characters. Do not emulate that, I say. That's like seeing the original 90210 as the level of story you want to emulate or something. I love Star Trek, but sometimes TNG and Voyager (and ENT and even rarely DS9) needed a good spanking for needless use of nonsense-particles, just because the writers were too lazy/dim-witted to come up with a story that actually USED the technology in that world.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic - if you do use fiat to block something, think about what you are doing. For example, if you say the vault has a magical ward against teleportation, that's fine, but then you need to think about how the ward was created, how easy it is to create others, who did it, and so on - these might not be questions for during the game (but they might), but they are questions for you and your setting, post-game.

I speak from experience here, specific experience, too, as I run a 4E game which has a lot of heists, and I use a mixture of making-stuff-up and consequences to direct the PCs. I don't suddenly introduce fiat elements unless it would be truly stupid not to (which is once in a blue moon). Instead, I'm more likely to say, allow this bank to be robbed, but ensure future/other bank designs defeat that (not in a fiat "on the spot", way, but in a prepared "in my notes" way).

Still, you may need to use fiat to block something like that, and that's okay - but DO consider the consequences for the world - your advice that the rationale doesn't matter is bad.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 31, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> However, I wouldn't say you necessarily couldn't do that in all D&D settings - how common Teleport is, how real a threat it is relative to other threats, and how worthwhile protecting against, it is, matters. If a handful of Wizards in the world can cast it, banks probably rate protecting against it similarly to protecting against tunnelling or the like IRL - which is to say it's low on the priority list - but if the bank is big enough, they will have it.



The default assumptions about worldwide magic and power level do matter. I think very few games are assuming that wizardry is so rare that power brokers are not using it or aware of it.



> Further, banks in medieval settings are typically protected more by reputation than defences - after all, no bank can stop a few dozen soldiers getting together and robbing it - but if it's owned by the crown and it's known that vengeance will follow, they will likely be discouraged.



It is possible that rather than protection, retribution is the order of the day. After all, it's entirely reasonable that someone who was holding a lot of money and then was robbed would have the resources to track the PCs down and deal with them. For a typical game, this is a rather large diversion, so I think faster solutions are more desirable than deferred ones, but there are many.



> That said, if it's just a straightforward and reasonably-priced spell or ritual to ward an area against teleportation or similar magic, then that'll be done.



It's interesting how many DMs (including myself on occasion) I've seen refer to a place as "teleport-blocked" or "divination-blocked" without an actual rules basis to support it.

I know that some canon sources have suggested that lead blocks one or both of these things, and lead-lined rooms make sense on multiple levels.



> I totally disagree with your suggestion that the rationale doesn't matter though - on the contrary, the rationale is more important than preventing a PC getting a lot of cash



Perhaps I was unclear. I didn't mean that the rationale is meaningless, I meant that from a DMing advice perspective, it is okay to choose whichever rationale makes sense for your campaign. The books don't need to tell everyone to divination-block all the king's chambers, because there are multiple correct ways to handle the situation.

The point is that you know that magic is not upsetting the world to the extent that it conceivably good, simply because it's a given that magic has been around for a while, and there is still a world. So something keeps it in check. What that something is might be different in FR than it is in Ravenloft, let alone in whatever world your individual group DM comes up with.



> Anyway, I'm getting off topic - if you do use fiat to block something, think about what you are doing. For example, if you say the vault has a magical ward against teleportation, that's fine, but then you need to think about how the ward was created, how easy it is to create others, who did it, and so on - these might not be questions for during the game (but they might), but they are questions for you and your setting, post-game.



You definitely need to consider the implications of whether, if something can be done once, it can be done again. Whatever solution you come up with should be, on some level, binding.

It's particularly important in cases where the roles are switched. When I had my PCs build a keep and defend it, the question of how to do that in a D&D world became a very interesting one. Thankfully, I didn't shoot myself in the foot with any of my earlier worldbuilding choices.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 31, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> I think you hit those pitfalls if you reframe scenarios unprompted.
> 
> <snip>




If you and  [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] don't mind, I'm going to throw a few pennies worth in here.

In a game that is predicated upon hard framed action scene > conflict resolution > possibly a transition scene or straight to another hard framed action scene, there are a lot of player flags and player insurance that the GM is required to observe to even play the game at all.  Fidelity to these things is what ensures dynamic, player-driven outcomes as they engage in conflicts that they emotionally and philosophically have already bought into (at the PC build stage and during the evolution of play).  By definition, if the GM is doing his job properly and obseving the GM principles embedded in those systems, its impossible for play to achieve an "All Roads Lead to Rome" aesthetic.  Now of course, a GM doing a poor/wrong/inept job in observing the principles and techniques that drive play in those systems may very well lead to a railroad, but that is just user error and no fault of the system.  Which is why I quoted this perceptive bit above by Bawylie "I think you hit those pitfalls if you reframe scenarios unprompted."  That is right on the money.  

Take Dungeon World for example.  It is precisely what I described above; a quintessential conflict resolution gaming engine, built on fantasy tropes, hard scene framing, player flags/insurance, and GM principles to observe and test PC flags (bonds, alignment statements, PC archetype, PC decisions), "to find out what happens" (eg no metaplot, don't plan much and/or leave much malleable/open to define in play including geography), and to make "fiction first moves that follow from player moves" (all conflict resolution dice is handled player side).  There are plenty of other classic GMing principles such as "put them in a spot" and "fill their lives with adventure" but those are general while the ones above are mandate in a game built upon a chronology of framed scenes and resolved conflicts (rather than a mostly serial passage of, and accounting for, time and process sim task resolution).  As Bawylie said, framing new scenes requires perception of and obeyance to either system embedded prompts or intuitive prompts that happen at the table (eg the dramatic conflict which charges the scene has basically been resolved and aborting before all procedural elements are addressed would maintain pacing and player interest).

Quick for instance.  Let us say that one of the PCs is an Elven Ranger.  The relevant bits and bobs to observe might be:

- The Ranger fluff text for archetype.

- The players chosen look (how it might help to "put them in a spot" or "fill their lives with adventure")

- Ability scores and the accompanying basic moves they'll be good at and where they'll be weak.

- Auto PC build components for hunting/tracking, volley, augmented perilous journey, animal companion stuff, and any advanced moves. 

- Chatoic alignment statement of "Free someone from literal or figurative bonds."

- 2 of his 4 bonds have to do with another PC; perhaps something about their level of trust and something about a debt (tangible or intangible).

All of the above are prompts.  Some of them are about default archetype that insure the PCs thematic material and base archetype proficiency against me framing them into a situation that questions or denies that.  Some of it (such as the bonds and alignment statement) are questions/conflicts that the PC wants to engage during play and for that play to resolve.


* As such, I'm never going to frame the PCs into a perilous journey where the scene opener introduces a fiction that makes the Ranger look like a foolish trailblazer et al.  I'm never going to frame a scene around the Ranger's animal companion beligerantly disobeying him or not being his steadfast companion.  I'm never going to frame him into an archery contest where he looks like a bufoon.  I'm never going to frame him into a scene where game/prey has evaded him.  I'm never going to frame him into a scene where his alignment statement or bond has already been resolved by my own fiat; eg I decide the level of trust or matter of the debt.

** I will, however, directly frame him into conflicts that test each of those aspects of his PC and we will find out in play through his decisions, the outcome of the confict resolution mechanics, and the subsequent evolution of the scene that observes the GM principle of  "fiction first moves that follow from player moves" (which will follow from other GM principles and the outcome of the conflict resolution mechanics; 10 + success, 7 - 9 success with complications, 6 - failure and mark xp).  This is the entire point of play.

If the GM consistently observes ** while mindfully staying away from *, a railroad will never, ever be produced.


----------



## Sadras (May 31, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> As a fairly seasoned traveller, the idea that I have no idea where I am in a new city is ... anti-immersive.




Okay, fair enough, but these adventurers were in the sewers, I'm sure you are not a seasoned traveller of sewers unless the Ninja Turtles have made a strong comeback. But generally I get what you saying in the rest of your post regarding a DM does not 5 senses make. I tend to agree with you on most points, but would not discount the possibility of getting lost, I would certainly provide further information - if they travelled in a mostly eaterly direction, number of drains, noises they have heard, where they entered from...give some clues. 



> As for DM's immersion, this is not a priority. If a DM is immersed in someone's head, they need to get out of it. They won't stay for long. If a DM is immersed because of the consistency of the world they've probably built a planet of the hats. The real world is too big for one person to understand. So I want to know what you mean by "immersion" for the DM unless you're using it as a synonym for flow.




Contrived scenarios break immersion from the story I'm telling. It would feel forced and fake. The PCs are a stumbling point and I create something in the story for them to figure out. Id prefer to say using your character's intelligence of 17 you essentially have the ability to fast track the mathematical puzzle before you (as a DM I start decreasing the goal posts of the puzzle's answer), giving the player something to work with. I'm still allowing him to figure it out and benefit from his high intelligence. And as time passes I could narrow the goal posts further, hopefully the player/s will get the answer on their own. 
I generally use a lot of puzzles, riddles and such like in our games - attempting to make things challenging enough and that no matter that I've given some hints/clues (if any) the players themselves must feel like they solved puzzles/riddles. You can do the same with social interactions, research, insight rolls...where you begin leading PCs, but up to a point. 

So in the instance of the sewers - if I have imagined this area of the sewers is empty and the adventurers are lost, I generally do not adhoc create a character to appear to assist them - that destroys my story, even if done creatively - likey they hear the distant crying of a child. My immersion of the world I created, it needs to feel natural and unforced. Hope I'm making myself clear.
And every other point you mentioned further in the discussion which I have not included I agree on.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 1, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Now 4e is a lot like AdnD. The DMG is written with a very strong voice. But once you get into later books like the dmg2 things change a lot and the advice gets a lot broader.



My 4e rulebook* buying stopped at the first round of three (DMG-PH-MM) so anything after that is lost on me.

* - as opposed to adventure buying (I have several), minis (I have far too many) and expansion books e.g. Adventurer's Vault (I have a couple).

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 1, 2014)

Hussar said:


> I wonder if the issue is related to the control of flow of information. The players want to know where they are in the city but they also want to minimize risk.
> 
> The DM otoh generally wants to increase risk because that makes for an exciting game.
> 
> So the DM rules that the pc's cannot know their location in the city. A perfectly reasonable answer which nicely dovetails with what the DM wants.



So far we're in perfect agreement.



> The problem now though is the players can't make an informed decision...



Of course they can't make an informed decision.  That's the whole point. 







> ...and assume that if the go up and check, they will be caught or otherwise engaged in some problem.



Bluntly put, that's their problem; and if they want to hamstring themselves by making assumptions like that I have little sympathy.  Adventuring is risky business!

At this point the players-as-characters have three choices, none of them optimal:
1. Keep moving ahead despite not knowing where they are or what they might be getting into
2. Send someone (or have everyone go) topside for a look around, in full realization there could be risk involved
3. Turn around and retreat, abandoning the mission either temporarily (spend some time pacing out the streets next day to give a better idea how they correlate to the underground) or permanently.

The point is, they still have choices; and need to make one.



> What's wrong with giving the players what they asked for at this point?  They've indicated that they don't want an encounter at this point, so what's wrong with just giving them What they asked for and moving on?



If they don't want an encounter then what the bleep are they doing wandering around in the sewers beneath a dangerous town?

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Jun 1, 2014)

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] I presume that they were in the sewers to travel from A to B. In my mind, B is the important part. Having that one random encounter as you move from A to B is usually pointless. 

It's not like they are hexploring the sewers. The point of the session isn't the sewers, that's just a means to an end. 
 [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] - can you elaborate how I'm being ridiculous?  How can I get a storyline where Luke (the NPC) joins Vader in the Dark side if Luke is predetermined to be impossible to convince?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 1, 2014)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] I presume that they were in the sewers to travel from A to B. In my mind, B is the important part. Having that one random encounter as you move from A to B is usually pointless.
> 
> It's not like they are hexploring the sewers. The point of the session isn't the sewers, that's just a means to an end.



This could be; we're (differently, I think) assuming the context here.  You're assuming simple A-B travel, where I'm assuming either A-X travel (as in, they don't know their end destination and won't until they find it) or A-0 travel (as in, the sewers *are* the adventure but the characters don't yet know this).

And even in the A-B travel scenario, let's face it: sewers are not a normal means of getting from A to B.   That there's potentially some risk involved should be a reasonable expectation; including the very basic risk of getting lost.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Jun 1, 2014)

I agree with all of that Lanefan.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 1, 2014)

Sadras said:


> Okay, fair enough, but these adventurers were in the sewers, I'm sure you are not a seasoned traveller of sewers unless the Ninja Turtles have made a strong comeback. But generally I get what you saying in the rest of your post regarding a DM does not 5 senses make. I tend to agree with you on most points, but would not discount the possibility of getting lost, I would certainly provide further information - if they travelled in a mostly eaterly direction, number of drains, noises they have heard, where they entered from...give some clues.




We're basically on the same page I think 
 [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], PCs wanting to minimise risk is IME very much a product of certain gaming systems (chiefly oD&D and Call of Cthulhu).  In systems where the PCs are more robust (Fate springs to mind) they tend to be a lot more "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes" because it works and gets bigger successes.  It's one advantage of such systems.  Also I'd personally say that if the 4E books you picked up were the PHB/DMG/MM and the adventures you've seen the worst of the system rather than the best.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 1, 2014)

Just to back up NeonC here, the most unfortunate bit about 4e is how bad the early stuff was.  

Give credit where it's due. 3e came out of the gate firing on all cylinders. Like it or hate it 3e had its game face on right from the word go. 

4e really did take a while to get going. You can really see how the system evolved over time. Too little too late unfortunately.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 1, 2014)

Hussar said:


> I'd prefer that Luke's character develop in play rather than be pre-determined. Is it possible to turn Luke to the dark side should be determined in play.
> 
> If the Vader PC fails, then Yes, Luke is not turnable. Otoh, if Vader succeeds, then Luke's feelings aren't so carved in stone.



This is my general approach, too.

In my reply to  [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] upthread, I emphasised the importance of player knowledge. If the player knows that Luke is likely unable to be lured by the prospect of power, but decides to proceed that way anyway (eg because that's all his/he PC has to offer), then that is different from the GM springing this on the player as (hitherto) hidden backstory.

It can also depend on how things resolved. For instance, if we conceive as the resolution as a skill challenge with a combat embedded in it, then maybe Vader's player has won the challenge, but not without some failures along the way. And so the GM narrates a "Yes, but" resolution: Luke falls rather than turns, but the player learns that Luke has another weakness that could be exploited, namely, his love for Leia. That's a pretty harsh "Yes, but . . ", but in the overall context of play perhaps it makes sense.

That's why I gave some actual play examples upthread, to try and make things concrete. With these hypotheticals it's hard to generalise when (necessarily) we don't have any actual play context to better inform what is going on and what the dynamics are between GM and player.



Sadras said:


> Contrived scenarios break immersion from the story I'm telling.



As a GM I'm not trying to tell a story. I'm trying to frame the players (via their PCs) into difficult situations. If I do my job properly, and the game's mechanics work properly, then some sort of story should emerge.



Sadras said:


> Even our XP rewards lean far heavier on travel, new experiences, research, social interactions, meeting new persona as opposed to primarily combat.



I don't really see what work "primarily combat" is doing here. Social interactions and meeting new people are important in my game too. And I guess would be important in  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s game.

Another very important part of my game is the players (and thereby their PCs) learning the campaign backstory. But I generally prefer that the backstory come out in the context of resolving a situation - say, in the context of interacting with an NPC - then via a "download" triggered by (say) the PCs going to a library. Here's an example of the last purely exploratory scenario I ran. Here are two links to some examples of the sorts of social encounters I enjoy, which are my typical way of bringing out and/or establishing backstory.



Sadras said:


> what if your PCs went mountain climbing and forgot to purchase the rope, grapping hook, map...etc Is equipment out the window too or just the research/guide thing?



I'd generally assume that they did get that stuff, or that their success in getting that stuff is rolled into the climb check.

In a system that lets resource acquisition itself be part of the resolution process (eg a "buy gear" check to support the subsequent climbing check) I'd be happy to use that. But D&D doesn't really have that sort of system.

The other part of this, though, is that Conan climbs plenty of walls, mountains, cliffs etc without stocking up on gear first. And in one of the REH stories (Rogues in the House?) he breaks in via sewers without having checked the library archives first. I find that emphasising preparation, which in many respects is an aspect of PC-building (eg adding items onto equipment lists), can detract from actual resolution, which is where I prefer play to be focused.



Sadras said:


> Your PCs miss your intial clues to get required knowledge (i.e. they ignore the town's library archives), you continue to adapt the story so that the PCs acquire the information anyways (they bump into an old retired architect's assistant at a tavern), or (they find a kid in the sewers that guides them) or (they hear the gong of a church bell, knowing where they are in the sewers). So something along those lines?
> Continually pushing the storyline forward, minimising setbacks and overlooking the Players/Characters "oversights"



This paragraph refers to a storyline being pushed forward. That way of talking doesn't really resonate with me, because it suggest a pre-determined end point (what  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] referred to as "Roads to Rome").

If the players in my game took their PCs into the sewers to try to sneak into another part of the city, then that's what we're resolving. In the context of 4e, Dungeoneering and Streetwise checks would be the order of the day (and would help resolve the question of whether or not the PCs got any useful information in advance). If checks succeed, the narration suggested by  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] (a PC sticks his/her head up through a grate) works fine. If checks fail and things seem to be grinding to a halt, some sort of complication is in order - maybe the PCs bump into their rivals in the sewer, heading the other way! Or if that would be too distracting, the same grate technique can work but this time the PC is seen as s/he is ducking back down - so now the PCs are on a tighter clock.

This link describes how I handled some of the last big Underdark crawl in my campaign.



Sadras said:


> I think you could easier adapt to my group (research/guide/equipment) as they would just give you more to work with as a storyteller, than if I would to your PC group (muddling things through).



I think you'd find my group gives plenty for a GM to work with.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 1, 2014)

One constant note that I seem to see here is this idea that if we don't do things in a certain way, then my games must be nothing but hackfests with no role play. 

It really does fly up my nose. Ignoring or over ruling mechanics does not make someone a better role player. Nor does following mechanics mean that a person is a poorer role player. 

Mechanics are tools. Being able and willing to use a tool is not indicative of a lack of ability.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 1, 2014)

Hussar said:


> One constant note that I seem to see here is this idea that if we don't do things in a certain way, then my games must be nothing but hackfests with no role play.
> 
> It really does fly up my nose. Ignoring or over ruling mechanics does not make someone a better role player. Nor does following mechanics mean that a person is a poorer role player.
> 
> Mechanics are tools. Being able and willing to use a tool is not indicative of a lack of ability.




I'll go one step further.  Every time the DM overrules the mechanics is to be treated as a failure of the game.  If I need to overrule the mechanics then one of two things is happening:
1: I am using the wrong tools for what I should do and should be using a different set of rules.  I therefore made a mistake when I chose the ruleset.
2: The rules are not fit for purpose.  I therefore made a mistake when I chose the ruleset - and shouldn't trust the designer.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 1, 2014)

It surprises me how few people understand DMing when it's pretty easy to explain. In wargaming (and boardgaming too) there is a common practice of people who don't play the games, but run them for others as assistants. They study the rules so they can be called upon without looking them up or debating them, they set up the table move the pieces around, they take the measurements often verifying with players, they try and quickly outline options for players who are confused on what they can and cannot do at any given point, and so on. They don't play they game, they are running the game so others might better enjoy it. That's the whole of what a DM does too. 

There can be something of an art to that, but mostly it's about being organized, quick on your feet, fair, and knowing the rules inside and out.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 1, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> It surprises me how few people understand DMing when it's pretty easy to explain. In wargaming (and boardgaming too) there is a common practice of people who don't play the games, but run them for others as assistants. They study the rules so they can be called upon without looking them up or debating them, they set up the table move the pieces around, they take the measurements often verifying with players, they try and quickly outline options for players who are confused on what they can and cannot do at any given point, and so on. They don't play they game, they are running the game so others might better enjoy it. That's the whole of what a DM does too.
> 
> There can be something of an art to that, but mostly it's about being organized, quick on your feet, fair, and knowing the rules inside and out.




It surprises me that anyone thinks that "That's the whole of what a DM does too."  Because there are very few playstyles where that is the case.  And frankly I wouldn't care to GM them as it would take any agency away from NPCs and reduce them to simple procedures.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 1, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> I'll go one step further.  Every time the DM overrules the mechanics is to be treated as a failure of the game.  If I need to overrule the mechanics then one of two things is happening:
> 1: I am using the wrong tools for what I should do and should be using a different set of rules.  I therefore made a mistake when I chose the ruleset.
> 2: The rules are not fit for purpose.  I therefore made a mistake when I chose the ruleset - and shouldn't trust the designer.




Now that I don't agree with.  Role playing is far, far too complicated for any single ruleset to get it 100% right 100% of the time.  There will always be times when exceptions should be made.  And, by and large that's built into the rules.  Rule 0 isn't a bad thing.  Again, it's a tool with very practical uses.  

Take the much maligned 3e Profession skills.  They do what they are meant to do.  Provide a quick and dirty way of determining what happens if the player decides to take up a trade for a period of time.  And, provide a way to mechanically flesh out the background of the character.  Fair enough.  Is it accurate or realistic?  Not even a little, but, then, it's not meant to be.  It's a quick and dirty system for something that likely won't come up all that often in a game session.

Or, take the CR system.  It works, kinda sorta.  As a predictive tool, it's not terrible, but, not fantastic either.  But, it's better than no system at all and, once the assumptions are factored in, a decent tool to help DM's create interesting encounters that don't swing too far.  But, slavish adherence to the system won't make great adventures either.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 1, 2014)

Howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> They don't play they game, they are running the game so others might better enjoy it.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Mastering-as-a-Fine-Art/page11#ixzz33LuAVWjT




While I largely reject the absolutism in the rest of your post H&W, I do agree largely with this line.  Something I noticed in the tag line on the back of the 5e DMG really caught my eye:







"Entertain and inspire your players" is, IMO, the best advice you could give to a DM.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 1, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Now that I don't agree with.  Role playing is far, far too complicated for any single ruleset to get it 100% right 100% of the time.  There will always be times when exceptions should be made.  And, by and large that's built into the rules.  Rule 0 isn't a bad thing.  Again, it's a tool with very practical uses.



No, rule naught certainly isn't a bad thing.

But there's also the DM cheating idea, which is also potentially not a bad thing. As the DM cheating text I quoted above suggested, sometimes you want your players to believe that one thing is happening, even if what's actually happening is very different. In some campaigns, you want you players to believe that PCs might die, even if you've already decided that this simply won't happen, for example. Or, when you run the old classic "PCs get captured and then escape" storyline, you might want them to believe they had a chance at resisting capture, but in reality you might be setting the DC at their check result +1 because you just want to railroad them into that story. Certainly things that can be overdone, but I suspect most DMs do some of this stuff some of the time.

One thing about the rules is that the players are aware of them. I had one DM who asked us not to read the DMG for that reason, but in truth, most experienced players have either tried DMing or at least know what's in there. If you want to create genuine uncertainty or manipulate the players in certain ways, sometimes you need to go off the book even if there's nothing wrong with the book in and of itself.

***

And then there's houseruling. Sometimes it's done to fix problems, other times it's just about creating a specific nonstandard dynamic, changing or fleshing something out to fit a specific campaign or setting. It may or may not be indicative of problems with the original rules, but again it's probably something that most DMs do to some extent, and it's such a key part of a DM taking ownership of his own game that it's hard to say the existence of houserules speaks poorly of the published game.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 1, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Entertain and inspire your players" is, IMO, the best advice you could give to a DM.



The last thing any DM should ever be is an entertainer. It's like a complete misunderstanding of games and why they are designed. A DM is a referee and in that respect needs to be fair first and last. Don't be cruel to your players, but don't favor them either. Don't make calls so the players like you better. That's a sure route to failure. Instead, work hard to be the best DM you can and you will gain the players' respect and thanks for a game well run.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 1, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> The last thing any DM should ever be is an entertainer. It's like a complete misunderstanding of games and why they are designed. A DM is a referee and in that respect needs to be fair first and last. Don't be cruel to your players, but don't favor them either. Don't make calls so the players like you better. That's a sure route to failure. Instead, work hard to be the best DM you can and you will gain the players' respect and thanks for a game well run.




I don't see being entertaining and inspiring and your (good) definition of the best DM you can be as mutually exclusive.  Being entertaining and inspiring doesn't preclude handholding the players and favoring the PCs.

While the DM isn't the only person at the table that can make the game fun and interesting, he is the focal point of the players and their window into the world their PCs run around in.  Making the world come alive and running fun and interesting NPC and combat encounters help to create the foundation of a good game.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 1, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> We're basically on the same page I think
> [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], PCs wanting to minimise risk is IME very much a product of certain gaming systems (chiefly oD&D and Call of Cthulhu).  In systems where the PCs are more robust (Fate springs to mind) they tend to be a lot more "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes" because it works and gets bigger successes.  It's one advantage of such systems.



And at the same time it's a flaw of such systems, depending on one's point of view...and this cycles right back around to the gamism-vs.-simulation thread from last week.  Realism and-or simulation would strongly suggest minimizing risk wherever possible (no matter how robust you are, or think you are), where gamism prefers plowing ahead no matter what, looking for those bigger payoff moments.

It probably goes without saying (but yes, I'm going to say it anyway) that while I recognize that the second option may be fun, I far prefer the sort of game given by the first option.


> Also I'd personally say that if the 4E books you picked up were the PHB/DMG/MM and the adventures you've seen the worst of the system rather than the best.



Perhaps, but after picking up one round of books that did nothing for me I wasn't any too keen on going out and buying a second round. 



			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The last thing any DM should ever be is an entertainer. It's like a complete misunderstanding of games and why they are designed. A DM is a referee and in that respect needs to be fair first and last. Don't be cruel to your players, but don't favor them either. Don't make calls so the players like you better. That's a sure route to failure. Instead, work hard to be the best DM you can and you will gain the players' respect and thanks for a game well run.



I'm a DM, not a robot; and if I do nothing else right I'm at the least going to make bloody sure my players get a good show.  In return I expect to be entertained by said players, and in that these days I am rarely if ever disappointed.

Lan-"let's hope 5e gets it right the first go around"-efan


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 1, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> The last thing any DM should ever be is an entertainer. It's like a complete misunderstanding of games and why they are designed. A DM is a referee and in that respect needs to be fair first and last. Don't be cruel to your players, but don't favor them either. Don't make calls so the players like you better. That's a sure route to failure. Instead, work hard to be the best DM you can and you will gain the players' respect and thanks for a game well run.



Setting aside that a DM does a lot more than a referee, have you ever looked at the way sports officials make calls? Some of them are definitely trying to provide entertainment value independently. Is every emphatic strikeout call a similar violation? There's also a strong case to be made that many of them alter the substance of their calls in ways that favor the spectators' interests (rather than strictly following the rules). Is that wrong?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 1, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Setting aside that a DM does a lot more than a referee, have you ever looked at the way sports officials make calls? Some of them are definitely trying to provide entertainment value independently. Is every emphatic strikeout call a similar violation? There's also a strong case to be made that many of them alter the substance of their calls in ways that favor the spectators' interests (rather than strictly following the rules). Is that wrong?




Howandwhy99, you've just made me agree with Ahnehnois, and we don't agree on just about anything.  

The idea that a DM is there simply as rules referee is ridiculous on its face.  Referee's do not create content for the game.  Referee's cannot actually directly impact either side in a game by telling them what to do or by changing scenario conditions.

A DM most certainly can do this.  "The orcs ambush you on the road" means that I, the DM, set the initial conditions of the encounter.  It's my decision, as DM, that this will be a combat encounter.  Conversely, I can set initial conditions so that it might not be a combat encounter.

This is all far and away beyond what a referee can do in a game.  As a referee, I don't get to tell the players that today they are going to play in the rain and that those adverse conditions will affect play in this and that manner.  As a DM, I most certainly can.  If I want it to rain today, it rains.  If I want it to be clear, it's clear.  Do you meet wandering monsters as you proceed across the jungles?  Well, let's just see shall we?

DM's are content creators as well as rules adjudicators.  Trying to reduce them down to simply refereeing misses the point.  Who are they refereeing between?  After all, in a game with a ref, you have two sides don't you?  So, who are the two sides at your game table?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 1, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Now that I don't agree with.  Role playing is far, far too complicated for any single ruleset to get it 100% right 100% of the time.  There will always be times when exceptions should be made.  And, by and large that's built into the rules.  Rule 0 isn't a bad thing.  Again, it's a tool with very practical uses.




There will be times.  Anyone who thinks they get it right all the time (at any level) simply lacks self-analysis.  But each time you need to it cuts what the players know about the gameworld and undermines immersion unless the rules were already undermining immersion.



> Take the much maligned 3e Profession skills.  They do what they are meant to do.




The thing is that what the rules were intended to do wasn't what they say they do.  I can think of a dozen ways of doing them better - most of which don't defeat the worldbuilding 3.0 claimed to provide.  And very few of them involve poaching skill points away from skills needed for survival.



> Or, take the CR system.  It works, kinda sorta.  As a predictive tool, it's not terrible, but, not fantastic either.  But, it's better than no system at all and, once the assumptions are factored in, a decent tool to help DM's create interesting encounters that don't swing too far.  But, slavish adherence to the system won't make great adventures either.




The CR system is a guideline rather than a rule.  The only rule part of it is the XP values.  It's an incredibly wonky tool tbh and whether it's better than no system at all is a matter of taste.



Lanefan said:


> And at the same time it's a flaw of such systems, depending on one's point of view...and this cycles right back around to the gamism-vs.-simulation thread from last week.  Realism and-or simulation would strongly suggest minimizing risk wherever possible (no matter how robust you are, or think you are), where gamism prefers plowing ahead no matter what, looking for those bigger payoff moments.
> 
> It probably goes without saying (but yes, I'm going to say it anyway) that while I recognize that the second option may be fun, I far prefer the sort of game given by the first option.




And I agree that realism is a good thing ... in some games.  Call of Cthulhu is great because of it.  But to me using realism as a bedrock means that we need to remove dungeons and remove massively escalating hit points.  And get rid of the free and easy magic that permeates the spellcasting classes.  It also doesn't help that pre-3.X combat is padded sumo in a way that makes 4e seem fast - one minute combat rounds really take away any belief I have that the characters aren't ridiculously larger than life.



> Perhaps, but after picking up one round of books that did nothing for me I wasn't any too keen on going out and buying a second round.




That I can understand.  If I'd looked at 4E in 2008 not 2009 I might not like it half as much as I do   The whole thing was shorted a year of playtesting because they threw the first Alpha out after a year (and deservedly so) and made the Bo9S from the usable pieces.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 1, 2014)

Hussar said:


> The idea that a DM is there simply as rules referee is ridiculous on its face.



Let's not ridicule the actual hobby here. That is what a DM is and why they have rules to follow. They are a referee for the game, they are never a player. Like any referee they are never in a position to actually be a player.



> Referee's do not create content for the game.  Referee's cannot actually directly impact either side in a game by telling them what to do or by changing scenario conditions.



That's very true and true for DMs as well. There is no role in a game where one person gets to tell a player how they must play. DMs are referees in that they only convey the current set up.  They don't get to choose to manipulate it like a player.



> A DM most certainly can do this.  "The orcs ambush you on the road" means that I, the DM, set the initial conditions of the encounter.  It's my decision, as DM, that this will be a combat encounter.  Conversely, I can set initial conditions so that it might not be a combat encounter.



Initial conditions, like any rule, is set before play begins. Improvising behind the screen robs players of being able to actually play a game. So... the orcs are on the road because the generation rules put them there. It is a combat because the players engaged with the orcs in combat (or perhaps their PCs couldn't get away). Either way it is up to the players to game the current design, not the DM. 



> As a referee, I don't get to tell the players that today they are going to play in the rain and that those adverse conditions will affect play in this and that manner.  As a DM, I most certainly can.  If I want it to rain today, it rains.  If I want it to be clear, it's clear.  Do you meet wandering monsters as you proceed across the jungles?  Well, let's just see shall we?



Ironically wandering monsters are rolled, not made up by the DM. I don't see how that relates.

But what you are saying harms the role of DM so that they can no longer be runners of games. What you are suggesting is a deliberate interferer with a game. Someone who is outside the game rules, not playing, but moving pieces around and directly impacting the game so players can no longer partake in a game. To me, that's not just a bad role in a game, but a mockery of games. Rule Zero isn't a rule that should be in any game. "Quit following the rules" is quitting the game. It's something we don't want fellow players to do, but we definitely don't want referees to do. More than anyone they are there to keep the game fair. Why even have a DM in that case (or a game?) if you're not going to allow a gameable situation for players to play?



> DM's are content creators as well as rules adjudicators.  Trying to reduce them down to simply refereeing misses the point.  Who are they refereeing between?  After all, in a game with a ref, you have two sides don't you?  So, who are the two sides at your game table?



Remember, the only stuff a DM may tell the players is rule content. This is not created by them after the game (campaign) begins. They are never content creators after the clock starts just as the referee in Mastermind never changes around the code behind the screen after that game starts. 

And of course DMs are refereeing between the players. Every player is on his or her own side, that's one of the most important design elements of Dungeons & Dragons. Heck, of any cooperative game. The rules the DM uses are supposed to support, but never require the tactic of cooperation. This is what makes it a cooperative game. This keeps the players from feeling compelled to follow the group and not think for themselves.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 1, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Let's not ridicule the actual hobby here. That is what a DM is and why they have rules to follow. They are a referee for the game, they are never a player. Like any referee they are never in a position to actually be a player.
> 
> That's very true and true for DMs as well. There is no role in a game where one person gets to tell a player how they must play. DMs are referees in that they only convey the current set up. They don't get to choose to manipulate it like a player.
> 
> Initial conditions, like any rule, is set before play begins. Improvising behind the screen robs players of being able to actually play a game.




Would you please stop?  Your approach to RPG rules represents one tiny fraction of RPGers, and one that so far as I am aware does not have significant numbers outside The Gaming Den.  This doesn't make it invalid - it just means that it is an extreme minority opinion.

Off the top of my head:
The Short Primer for Old School Games rejects the idea of rules rather than rulings.  That's Matt Finch - who wrote Castles & Crusades, OSRIC v 1.0, and Swords and Wizardry.  In short all those games are based on a rejection of your role of the DM.  So, for that matter is Flame Princess and its refusal to have any monster manual, and _Vornheim_ (the single best part of that line and a book I recommend to everyone) stands as a straight up rejection of your ideas.  There is some presence in what you preach among the OSR - but it is not terribly influential there.

Despite 3.X explicitely telling the DM to overrule the rules where necessary, with Rule Zero, the largest group of online people practicing what you preach is as far as I am aware The Gaming Den and its group of 3.5 fans.  Pathfinder stands as another rejection to your playstyle with all the advice given for that game.

4E, and for that matter 2E are also rejections of what you are advocating with encounter based play (a single scan of the 2E DMG should tell you this).

White Wolf/World of Darkness?  The GM is straight up called The Storyteller.  I have my issues with White Wolf because of this.  But it's about as clear cut a rejection of what you are advocating as is possible.  Indeed a big inspiration behind The Forge and Story-games is that there was too much GM authority and writing things like that - it was a rejection of exactly how far Storyteller was from your playstyle of choice.

Fate?  Don't make me laugh.  The GM frames scenes in Fate.  And offers straight up compels.

Indeed outside the bounds of D&D I'm trying to think of a single RPG that does things the way you indicate.  Possibly Harnmaster?  Inside the bounds of D&D what you are advocating is a fragment within the OSR (I don't know how big because I don't know the OSR well at all) and a small fragment within the 3.5 community, obviously rejected by other 3.5 players such as Ahnehosis.

That you play the way you choose to is fine as long as you and the rest of your group has fun with it.  But please stop trying to state your minority positions are "the hobby".  They aren't.  They are minority positions within subsets of the hobby.  And there are good reasons to do things the way you indicate, so by all means keep advocating them.  But there are reasons to do things in other ways and as a general rule the majority of the hobby chooses other ways.  You do not get to speak for the hobby, especially not when you have beliefs so far outside the mainstream.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 1, 2014)

[MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] While I agree that the role of the DM as you see it is a viable way to play the game, it certainly isn't the only way.

In fact, I'd argue it's very viable, seeing as that's exactly how computer AI runs video game RPGs.  Impartial with rules and scenario unchanging once the game begins.

I love the Bethesda and BioWare RPGs, fun stuff.  But the reason I like TTRPGs is that the one running the game isn't a limited computer AI, but a human being.  Creativity and imagination of the GM is what makes TTRPGs fun, in my opinion.

If my job as a GM is just following a bunch of IF/THEN statements, I'd grow bored very quickly.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 1, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> Would you please stop?  Your approach to RPG rules represents one tiny fraction of RPGers, and one that so far as I am aware does not have significant numbers outside The Gaming Den. This doesn't make it invalid - it just means that it is an extreme minority opinion.



Are you compelled to respond to my posts? No, of course not. And can we agree to disagree about what Dungeons & Dragons and the hobby of role playing games actually are? I hope so. Is there an entire segment of the hobby not fooled into storygames by the current conflating of narrative theory as game theory, one that instead studies what RPGs actually are and why they have been designed so for decades? Undoubtedly.  But dismissing opinions you don't like as extreme minority opinions is the stifling of ideas outside your self made status quo. Please stop doing that. Please stop dogpiling posters on this board who don't see RPGs as having anything to do with The Big Model or storytelling. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't make what you do wrong any more than what we do. They are simply very different hobbies. And if you want others to stop posting their definitions of what RPGs actually are, stop doing so yourself.

EDIT: Seeing as this a forum for talking about RPGs I don't expect you or anyone else to do the last.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 1, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Are you compelled to respond to my posts? No, of course not. And can we agree to disagree about what Dungeons & Dragons and the hobby of role playing games actually are? I hope so. Is there an entire segment of the hobby not fooled into storygames by the current conflating of narrative theory as game theory, one that instead studies what RPGs actually are and why they have been designed so for decades? Undoubtedly.  But dismissing opinions you don't like as extreme minority opinions is the stifling of ideas outside your self made status quo. Please stop doing that. Please stop dogpiling posters on this board who don't see RPGs as having anything to do with The Big Model or storytelling. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't make what you do wrong any more than what we do. They are simply very different hobbies. And if you want others to stop posting their definitions of what RPGs actually are, stop doing so yourself.




I'm no more compelled to respond to your posts than you are to mine.  But I do not like leaving statements that are flatly, objectively incorrect unchallenged.  Your statements about the role of the DM are in flat contradiction to every DMG from 2E onwards.  Are you willing to therefore say that 2E with its encounter based play model wasn't D&D and neither was 3.0, 3.5, 4E, or even Pathfinder?  And that the Rulings not Rules ethos advocated by the Old School Primer is against the spirit of D&D?

And for the record, as I said in the previous thread, I think the Big Model as it ended up is utterly useless.  All the final version says is "Different groups do things different ways and here are a few contributing factors."

I'm also not trying to throw anyone out of this hobby.  Adapt a "Live and let live" policy, and instead of saying "You must do things _this_ way" say "I think that this is the best way to do things because..." and I'll be less inclined to reply negatively to your posts.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 1, 2014)

Agamon said:


> [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] While I agree that the role of the DM as you see it is a viable way to play the game, it certainly isn't the only way.
> 
> In fact, I'd argue it's very viable, seeing as that's exactly how computer AI runs video game RPGs.  Impartial with rules and scenario unchanging once the game begins.
> 
> ...



Are you into wargames or the boardgaming community at all? My original post a page or two back is how I see DMing as defined for a least a couple decades or more.  At wargames the DM would be the one measuring the battlefield and facing of the tanks. Tallying off points scored and hiding any of the map for fog of war. Board gamers sometimes do this too, have someone who knows the rules very well, sets up the board, can help new players understand the options they have clarifying any confusion, and speed up play. And of course ensure the trusted continuity of the game which is paramount in any actual game. 

D&D doesn't use syllogistic logic per se, though like any game it is a pattern. It has game rules that reference a game board. One aspect of good rules design is to simplify how many rules exist and the tracking of all their elements to make the DM's job easier without removing the complexity so necessary for games to maintain their challenge. I think early D&D rule designers understood this inherently. They came from a very rigorous and hard-nosed gaming community already. That they ended up doing as DMs what most designers do when creating games meant their skills directly fed into how good at DMing they were.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 1, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> SNIP



Yes to those questions. Few people who lived in the 90s thought RPGs were being well designed in most respects. 


> I'm also not trying to throw anyone out of this hobby.  Adapt a "Live and let live" policy, and instead of saying "You must do things _this_ way" say "I think that this is the best way to do things because..." and I'll be less inclined to reply negatively to your posts.



Okay, append all my posts as "I think this is the way the game was actually designed to support play and currently is my best understanding of why the rules are what they are."

Btw, what behavior do you think is directly interfering to games?

EDIT: Also, I still can't find anything on The Gaming Den to make me think they aren't just talking about 3e. What are you seeing there?


----------



## Agamon (Jun 1, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Are you into wargames or the boardgaming community at all? My original post a page or two back is how I see DMing as defined for a least a couple decades or more.  At wargames the DM would be the one measuring the battlefield and facing of the tanks. Tallying off points scored and hiding any of the map for fog of war. Board gamers sometimes do this too, have someone who knows the rules very well, sets up the board, can help new players understand the options they have clarifying any confusion, and speed up play. And of course ensure the trusted continuity of the game which is paramount in any actual game.




I am a board gamer, and yes, this is something I see a lot at conventions where games are taught to large groups of new players.  At a smaller table, the "host player" is most often also just a player.  This isn't a particularly fun or necessary job, as the social contract dictates that all players play by the rules, an overseer is often unnecessary.



howandwhy99 said:


> D&D doesn't use syllogistic logic per se, though like any game it is a pattern. It has game rules that reference a game board. One aspect of good rules design is to simplify how many rules exist and the tracking of all their elements to make the DM's job easier without removing the complexity so necessary for games to maintain their challenge. I think early D&D rule designers understood this inherently. They came from a very rigorous and hard-nosed gaming community already. That they ended up doing as DMs what most designers do when creating games meant their skills directly fed into how good at DMing they were.




Yes, back in the early and mid 70's, this fledgling hobby was trying to find its own ground.  Many of the very early players were pulled from the wargaming ranks, and this, of course, very much informed the style of play.

But as the hobby has evolved over the years, it has incorporated many different styles of play.  GM as referee, GM as storyweaver (as opposed to storyteller; go write a book if you want to tell a story), GM as moderator, etc. How the game is played depends on the group and what they want out of the game, and if everyone is having fun, you're doing it right.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 1, 2014)

I don't see why so many people seem to disregard the DM's role as a player of the game.  I mean, it is a game, right?  The point is for all the participants to have fun?  The DM has a different role than the players, but the intent is still for him to enjoy participating in the activity.  He's not a coach, or a scorekeeper, he's a player who plays the game differently.  

If some people enjoy playing D&D by being completely neutral arbiters of rules while letting the other players completely control the game, more power to them - but I suspect that's not what most DMs enjoy.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 1, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Yes to those questions. Few people who lived in the 90s thought RPGs were being well designed in most respects.




On this we actually agree.  The 90s were in my opinion the nadir of game design.  The two biggest games of the 90s, 2E AD&D and WoD, both officially advocated that you routinely ignored the rules in order to obtain the result you want and to me that's anathema to good game design.  (My favourite game at the time was GURPS).  

Where we disagree is that to me at least there is a _vast_ difference between saying "That game is not very well designed" and "That is not an RPG".  Especially when they were sold as RPGs, marketed as RPGs, and both 2E and the WoD were accepted by almost all RPG players as RPGs.  There is no central RPG Commission that sits down and determines what an RPG is - and if there were it would have been TSR, who was publishing 2E as an RPG.  And to me any definition of RPGs that pushes out 90%+ of current RPG players is empirically wrong.



> Okay, append all my posts as "I think this is the way the game was actually designed to support play and currently is my best understanding of why the rules are what they are."




And here's another point of disagreement.  I don't believe that the way 2E was designed by Zeb Cook was for the same sort of play as that designed by Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax in the early 1970s.  For that matter I don't believe that 1e _AD&D_ was designed with the same intent as Brown Box D&D.  3.0's design goals were different again, as were 4E's.  (And arguably 3.5's).  Nevertheless they are all legitimate forms of D&D.  And all very definitely part of the hobby.

Brown Box D&D has the role of referee as you indicate.  As the RPG community separated from the wargame community it grew out of the role of the DM grew - D&D players were more likely to be SF fans than they were to be wargamers at heart and they wanted different things out of RPGs.  That doesn't mean that you can say that they weren't roleplayers, merely that they weren't wargamers.

Finally I believe that saying the hobby should stick to its roots makes about as much sense as saying that we should all drive round in cars that predate the Ford Model T.  Not that I have anything against classic car enthusiasts.



> Btw, what behavior do you think is directly interfering to games?




First, actively having to stop to consult rules for more than a few seconds at a time, or calculations that can't be done almost instantly.
Second, the rules producing ... unexpected ... outcomes that are anti-thematic.
Third, someone playing a Kender (or other griefing character).
Fourth, working on that railroad.  The GM having a story that _will be told _or there being a badly designed adventure path where the PCs are spectators.



> EDIT: Also, I still can't find anything on The Gaming Den to make me think they aren't just talking about 3e. What are you seeing there?




The Gaming Den is 3E exclusive.  It's the way they approach 3.5 that is close to yours.  DM as an impartial arbiter, strict following of the rules.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 1, 2014)

The odd thing about DMing is that it's both. You absolutely are a neutral arbiter of rules. But you are also supposed to do a lot of completely disparate things that have nothing to do with that, including being a player in your own right.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Jun 1, 2014)

There are a number of posters who don't seem to have internalized the fact that there are many ways of DMing and playing D&D (or any rpg), and that what's really important is that everyone involved has fun.

My personal style of DMing has evolved over 35+ years.  At one point, though, sometime in the mid-80s, I found the style that suited me best, both in terms of my enjoyment and that of the types of players who usually gamed with me.  I have tweaked it over the decades and adjusted it a bit to suit different groups, but the overall gist of it hasn't changed much.  

At it's most basic level, I tend to DM this way:

- I design my own world and adventures.  That keeps the players from using knowledge they gained by reading published books, and allows me full creative freedom.  For me, the design aspects are half the fun.

- I follow the old school D&D philosophy: if there is a rule that I don't like, I get rid of it or change it.  I don't do that on the fly or capriciously.  That allows me to present game the way I like, and discourages rules lawyers.

- I don't allow rules-lawyering in my games.  If I make an obvious mistake, I want someone to point it out to me, but that's different.  I don't expose the background mechanics in my game - players don't always know why I'm rolling, the exact AC of the creature they are fighting, etc.

- I allow min-maxing, but the characters have to deal with the consequences of the "min" part.  Given that, most of the players don't choose to min-max.

- I don't allow electronics at my table.  Players don't get to text or play with their cell phones without a good reason (keeping an eye on their kids, for example).  If the player can't stay relatively focused on the game, (s)he won't fit into my campaign.

- Though it's natural to make jokes and have fun at the table, I don't allow players who are mainly there to socialize or spend time with their significant others.  If the game isn't the main focus, that player doesn't need to be there.  I don't have a lot of time to game each week, and don't want to waste it with people who would be just as happy chit-chatting in the mall food court.

- I don't have a big ego.  I don't think in terms of players outsmarting me, or see myself in opposition to the players.  I want them to have fun, be creative, and enjoy the fruits of their accomplishments.  I'm primarily there as a facilitator.

- Players only know what their characters would know.

- Rolls count.  Without any potential  consequences to decisions, the game ceases to be fun.  Players have to  live with the results of their choices.  Having said that, I only require rolls on things that can't be resolved through roleplaying.  For example, if a character wants to try to talk an NPC into doing something, I go through the conversation with the player, with me playing the role of the NPC.  I play the NPC to character - each one has unique motivations and personality.  We don't just do a simple charisma or bluff roll.

- Characters can die if they make bad choices (ex. attacking something  they know they can't possibly defeat).  The game is less interesting if there isn't a chance of death in combat.

- In general, the only  time I fudge results to keep a character from dying is if I realize that  a character died because I made a poor decision in designing the  encounter, putting the group in a no-win position.  That has not  happened many times over the past 35 years. 

- I encourage and reward creative solutions to difficult problems.  In fact, I never design a campaign or encounter with only a single path to resolution.  I make sure there are many ways to approach it, and particularly enjoy it when the players find a way to resolve things that had not occurred to me.  I reward that with extra experience points.

- I reward players who come up with long-term goals, hobbies, etc. for their characters, and follow through with them over the course of the campaign.

- I design a world littered with various opportunities for adventures, encounters, etc.  I make sure that the characters get wind of those things at various points, and offer them reasons to pursue them, but they don't have to do that.  We can go full sandbox mode if that's what they like, because I have fully populated the world long before we start the campaign.  Most players prefer to pursue adventure hooks, but some groups want to pursue their own goals.  I can go either way with them.

- I don't run one-off games in D&D or Pathfinder.  I run campaigns.

- Combat is only one facet of my campaigns.  Characters generally spend more actual play time doing things that don't relate to combat.  I know how to keep that sort of thing interesting.

- I don't play with alignments in general.  I do require the players to  come up with personalities for their characters, though, and reward them  for sticking to the character concept.  I have never had an issue with  that approach.  Clerics and other deity-oriented characters have to stay within the general scope of what the deity allows, though.

- PCs can be "evil" by the common conception of the term, as long as they are motivated to act cooperatively with the group.  That's not much of a stretch in the real world, even, particularly given the number of CEOs and politicians who are effectively sociopaths.  

- Just like PCs, NPCs are individuals with their own personalities.  Not  all NPCs of a particular species fall neatly into stereotypical  concepts of "good" or "evil."  Some do, some don't.  Even creatures that  are by definition "evil" (demons, for example) may express their  alignments in different ways, and ultimately most have their own sense  of ethics, however odd they may seem to humans.  That sort of thing  encourages the characters to interact with NPCs as individuals, not as  cookie-cutter two-dimensional things.

- Players can use almost any class - including third-party ones - as long as they fit within the world I designed and are not overpowered.  I will even work with a very motivated character (outside of game time) to create a new class that (s)he has envisioned, as long as it fits within the game.  

- Players can have characters of any species, even those that are not officially playable, as long as they fit into the world I designed and are not overpowered.  As with original classes, I will work with a motivated character to figure out the applicable ability scores and traits.  The character does not have to be of human-level intelligence, but does need to be intelligent enough to learn and make decisions that aren't purely instinct-driven.  Given that, a dog would work just fine, but an ant wouldn't.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 1, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> Your statements about the role of the DM are in flat contradiction to every DMG from 2E onwards.



As I'm about to demonstrate, they are also in contradiction to Gygax's DMG and to Moldvay Basic.

Also, are you familiar with the early 80s Puffin book "What is Dungeons & Dragons?" (Americans generally aren't, but as a British RPGer you might be)? It includes examples of player-created fictional background, players making decisions for their PCs based on ingame story and thematic concerns rather than simply pawn stance, and certainly has a far more expansive conception of what RPGing might be then is demonstrated in howandwhy99's posts.



howandwhy99 said:


> DMs are referees in that they only convey the current set up.  They don't get to choose to manipulate it like a player.
> 
> Initial conditions, like any rule, is set before play begins. Improvising behind the screen robs players of being able to actually play a game.
> 
> ...



From Moldvay Basic, p B53:

Wandering monters may be determined at random or selected by the DM. . . Wandering Monsters should apppear more often if the party is making a lot of noise or light, but should not be frequent if the party spend a long time in one out-of-the-way place (if they stop in a room for the night, for example).​
From Gygax's DMG, p 221:

Some Dungeon Masters have difficulty decribing the contents of potion bottles, magical elixers, and like liquid substances. The lists below give the appearances of liquids, colors, tastes, and smells. In combination with *APPENDIX I: DUNGEON DRESSING* (q.v.) or by itself, these various descriptive words will serve the DM in god tea when preparing level keys or when "winging it".​
Gygax again, p 110:

_t is your right to conrol the dice at any time and to roll the dice for the players. . . You might . . . wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur._​_

It seems to me that neither Gygax nor Moldvay agrees with you. I have my own views on what sort of "overruling" Gygax had in mind - I think he was not talking about Rule 0 or cheating, but about GM control over framing and also the adjudication of fictional positioning - but it is clear that he thinks a GM has a role to play in introducing and managing game content during the course of play.

Relating back to my OP, Gygax also advised (on p 110) that

There will be times in which the rules to not cover a specific action that a player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can be done by assigning a reasonable probability to an event then letting the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage. You can weigh the dice in any way so as to give the advantage to either the player character or the non-player character, whichever seems more correct and logical to you while being fair to both sides.​_


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 1, 2014)

> You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur.



Sigh.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 2, 2014)

pemerton said:


> As I'm about to demonstrate, they are also in contradiction to Gygax's DMG and to Moldvay Basic.
> 
> Also, are you familiar with the early 80s Puffin book "What is Dungeons & Dragons?" (Americans generally aren't, but as a British RPGer you might be)? It includes examples of player-created fictional background, players making decisions for their PCs based on ingame story and thematic concerns rather than simply pawn stance, and certainly has a far more expansive conception of what RPGing might be then is demonstrated in howandwhy99's posts.




Thanks   I always like learning more about history and have never actually looked at Moldvay Basic.  As for early 80s Puffin, it was published before I learned to read.  On the other hand there were four copies available for 1p plus shipping from Amazon, so I just bought one.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 2, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> And I agree that realism is a good thing ... in some games.  Call of Cthulhu is great because of it.  But to me using realism as a bedrock means that we need to remove dungeons and remove massively escalating hit points.  And get rid of the free and easy magic that permeates the spellcasting classes.



Even given these conceits it's still a viable goal to make things as realistic as they can be, within reason.  What are the physics of magic, for example, and how can they fit in with what we already know in the real world? (I've actually given this some thought over time, and come up with a "theory" that at least works for my own purposes) 







> It also doesn't help that pre-3.X combat is padded sumo in a way that makes 4e seem fast - one minute combat rounds really take away any belief I have that the characters aren't ridiculously larger than life.



I agree 1-minute rounds are too long.  But I also subscribe to the pre-3e point of view that one's "swing" in a round is in fact your best attempt of possibly several over a short time span; which means 3e-length rounds are too short.  So, I long ago went to 30-second rounds; and this stil works as a good compromise.  (I'd have gone to 20-second rounds but 20 doesn't divide nicely by 6 and I use 6-segment rounds; 18 does but it then gets messy when trying to translate to minutes as there'd be 3.333 rounds per minute - yuck)


			
				howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> But what you are saying harms the role of DM so that they can no longer be runners of games. What you are suggesting is a deliberate interferer with a game. Someone who is outside the game rules, not playing, but moving pieces around and directly impacting the game so players can no longer partake in a game. To me, that's not just a bad role in a game, but a mockery of games. Rule Zero isn't a rule that should be in any game. "Quit following the rules" is quitting the game. It's something we don't want fellow players to do, but we definitely don't want referees to do. More than anyone they are there to keep the game fair. Why even have a DM in that case (or a game?) if you're not going to allow a gameable situation for players to play?



Much of the point of RPGs in general, at least the way I've always seen it, is that they are by design intentionally malleable, to allow for different styles of play at different tables.  The role of the DM is also malleable; and while the DM is (in all editions) supposed to enforce the rules there is lots of latitude in how, and in what rules will actually matter.  In the end, in fact, Rule 0 or its equivalent is the only true "rule" the game has.

Also, the DM *can* also be a player, unlike a referee in a hockey game.

I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] already nicely covered the rest of what I was going to say.

Lanefan


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 2, 2014)

Lanefan said:


> Even given these conceits it's still a viable goal to make things as realistic as they can be, within reason.  What are the physics of magic, for example, and how can they fit in with what we already know in the real world? (I've actually given this some thought over time, and come up with a "theory" that at least works for my own purposes)




Conceits about how magic works I have no problem with.  It's conceits about psychology that I do - and dungeon crawling in specific.



> I agree 1-minute rounds are too long.  But I also subscribe to the pre-3e point of view that one's "swing" in a round is in fact your best attempt of possibly several over a short time span; which means 3e-length rounds are too short.  So, I long ago went to 30-second rounds; and this stil works as a good compromise.  (I'd have gone to 20-second rounds but 20 doesn't divide nicely by 6 and I use 6-segment rounds; 18 does but it then gets messy when trying to translate to minutes as there'd be 3.333 rounds per minute - yuck)




That's not a pre-3E conceit.  That's a generic conceit.  Anyone who thinks it takes six seconds to swing a sword hasn't wielded one or is looking to get stabbed.  What 3e and to a greater extent 4e represent with 3E's six seconds and 4e's rough equivalent (I'm not sure it's specified as six seconds) is one exchange of blows or one OODA loop which from memory is around five seconds in a skirmish knife fight.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 2, 2014)

Lanefan said:


> In the end, in fact, Rule 0 or its equivalent is the only true "rule" the game has.



To me this is my biggest disagreement. Not just for D&D and RPGs, but any game or sport anywhere. I don't have a problem with house rules or homebrewing. I think hombrewing in fact is a temperature gauging the health of the hobby. But Rule Zero is bad game design in every respect I can think of. But I have come to respect your opinion over the years and if Rule 0 is that vital to you I'd like to know why. 



> Also, the DM *can* also be a player, unlike a referee in a hockey game.



For me this is simply not possible. Games are codes. The DM has a code, a hard solve, behind the screen. The players are gaming in to achieve self determined objectives within it. (The game itself like Chess is too hard to solve for it to be a puzzle) The DM could try and play it like a player does, but for me it always comes down to a referee running Mastermind trying to play both sides of the screen. Are they purposefully supposed to forget the code? Are they supposed to pretend they don't know what's going on behind the screen? They simply don't have the opportunity to be both IMO.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Jun 2, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Games are codes. The DM has a code, a hard solve, behind the screen. The players are gaming in to achieve self determined objectives within it. (The game itself like Chess is too hard to solve for it to be a puzzle) The DM could try and play it like a player does, but for me it always comes down to a referee running Mastermind trying to play both sides of the screen. Are they purposefully supposed to forget the code? Are they supposed to pretend they don't know what's going on behind the screen? They simply don't have the opportunity to be both IMO.




If I understand what you mean by "games are codes," I disagree.  They can be played that way, but don't have to be.

In addition, there is not always a hard solve.  That's just one way to play.

DMs play NPCs.  A good one plays the NPCs as characters with natural limits on their knowledge and with different motivations, just like PCs.


----------



## innerdude (Jun 2, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> But Rule Zero is bad game design in every respect I can think of. But I have come to respect your opinion over the years and if Rule 0 is that vital to you I'd like to know why.




In this sense I don't think he's referring to any one particular application of Rule Zero, or any particular "mindset" about when it's appropriate to use. I think he's referring more to the general reference that really, when it comes down to it, the social contract of an RPG group essentially has to say, "Yes, we agree to that, and you're the person who has the first (but far from final) judgement on what we're willing to play."

It's the same idea as the quote [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has in his signature, that "The rules don't give the GM his power. The consent of the players do." 

Rule Zero is basically the idea that at some level, once the social contract is in place, it's generally deferred to the GM to determine the baseline "Here's what we've agreed." But this doesn't mean in any way that the players can't later choose to disagree, negotiate, or opt out entirely to that unstated contract.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 2, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> As for early 80s Puffin, it was published before I learned to read.  On the other hand there were four copies available for 1p plus shipping from Amazon, so I just bought one.



Once you get a chance to have a look at it, start a thread - I'd be interested to see who else on these boards remembers it, and remembers being influenced by it.

For me, it - together with Moldvay Basic and early White Dwarf - had a much bigger impact on my approach to RPGing than Gygax's advice in his rulebooks. Back then, I didn't really have any sort of clear handle on the approach he was describing.



Ahnehnois said:


> Sigh.



Why the sigh?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 2, 2014)

I imagine the sigh is because Ahn argues in favor of this style of play to the point where he claims that this is the one true way of playing because of toss away lines like this appear in most dmg's. 

The fact that some of us reject this as railroading and think this is generally terrible advice has caused some disagreement.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 2, 2014)

Hussar said:


> I imagine the sigh is because Ahn argues in favor of this style of play to the point where he claims that this is the one true way of playing because of toss away lines like this appear in most dmg's.



The sigh is because I've seen it claimed that this line of text doesn't exist. I wouldn't call that a "throw away line" but regardless of what descriptors one attaches to it, it definitely exists.



> The fact that some of us reject this as railroading and think this is generally terrible advice has caused some disagreement.



Whether or not it's railroading is somewhat tangential. The question is whether it's legitimate for the DM to do it at all. The merits of doing it in any particular context are a discrete issue.



			
				innerdude said:
			
		

> Rule Zero is basically the idea that at some level, once the social contract is in place, it's generally deferred to the GM to determine the baseline "Here's what we've agreed." But this doesn't mean in any way that the players can't later choose to disagree, negotiate, or opt out entirely to that unstated contract.



That's a good way of looking at it; as I described elsewhere, it can be seen simultaneously as a dictatorship and a representative democracy. The players don't have much control over the game itself, but they have a lot of control over on what terms they chose to play it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 2, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> The sigh is because I've seen it claimed that  this line of text doesn't exist. I wouldn't call that a "throw away  line" but regardless of what descriptors one attaches to it, it  definitely exists.




Out of curiosity, who by (other than [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] ?)  Because I don't think that anyone denies that Rule Zero _exists_.   The DM has the right to overrule any rule in the game, and I have the  right to eat nothing but chilli for three days before gaming.  The claim  is that _invoking_ that right is something that should only be done under special circumstances (like the Queen's/Governor General's right to dissolve the Australian parliament).


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 2, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> That's a good way of looking at it; as I described elsewhere, it can be seen simultaneously as a dictatorship and a representative democracy. The players don't have much control over the game itself, but they have a lot of control over on what terms they chose to play it.




I'd question whether "they don't have much control over the game itself" was really true, personally. I think that's something that is very specific to the group and DM and so on. In more sandbox-style games, the players tend to exercise absolutely vast control over the game itself, in terms of what the game is about, what areas get focused on, and so on - they exercise considerably more control than the DM, in that sense, because if they don't want to go into the horrible dungeon of terror, and instead want to spend their time exploring overland, or setting up and guarding trade caravans, or whatever, then that is what the game is about - no matter than the DM spent days designing the horrible dungeon of terror.

On the flipside, if the players are keen to follow the DM's plot threads, and keen to be lead (as many are), in a more linear-narrative-style of game, then the DM has huge control over the focus of the game, it's themes, and so on.

Regarding the whole "DM can override anything" deal - this is problematic generally when the DM decides to override things in order to force the PCs into something that the players weren't interested in, or that wasn't a natural/logical outcome of the situation they were in.

Personally I think that, talking of DM advice the whole "You can override the rules!" bit should be kind of the last thing DMs learn - not "Rule 0", not introduced immediately, but "The Final Rule", after they've mastered all the basics, learned what they SHOULD be doing. Also, I really feel like it should be accompanied with more of a stern "With great power comes great responsibility!" speech. Because, really, it does!

(I say this particularly because virtually every abuse of "BECAUSE I'M THE DM, THAT'S WHY!", including my own, has come down to the DM being somewhat juvenile/emotional, and putting their personal desires ahead of what works for the game, or what the group clearly sees as right - for example, refusing to let a favourite NPC die (or even _appear_ to die, after all, in D&D, dead isn't dead!) despite the dice saying it is so, or introducing bullying GMPCs to push the PCs on to the path the DM wants, because he is frustrated with the tack they are taking, etc. etc.)


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 2, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> Finally I believe that saying the hobby should stick to its roots makes about as much sense as saying that we should all drive round in cars that predate the Ford Model T.  Not that I have anything against classic car enthusiasts.




And here is where you lost me.   If I said that McDonald's should stick with hamburgers instead of chicken, your point would not apply.  Playstyles are not technology.  The "new" way is not better for many people.  It's a new flavor.  Better for some and not better for others.  To this day a large chunk of the D&D/PF playerbase enjoy games predicated on old school approaches.   It is inevitable with the growth in popularity of a game that new styles will arise and that is fine.  It's only not fine when people like yourself imply that the old styles are out of date.

I get that some fraction of the playerbase has adopted some radically different approaches to roleplaying.  I don't have a problem with that fact.  Going around claiming though that you've found a universally more advanced and superior way of playing is not okay in my book.   Personally I think my way is best but that's because it's most fun for me.   I'm not presumptuous enough to claim my own tastes represent everyone elses.   We are no tiny minority though.

 [MENTION=11944]oth[/MENTION]ers
I believe D&D has always supported Rule 0.  I wouldn't DM a group where rule 0 was not in force.  I believe the way the DM chooses to exercise rule 0 will dictate the style of game.

While I agree that DMs can choose to modify any roll at any time, I also realize that keeping your world consistent is also important.  Personally I find I prefer to avoid messing with the dice.  I also run sandbox games where players do what they want.  That has nothing to do with DMs and rule 0.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 2, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> IIn more sandbox-style games, the players tend to exercise absolutely vast control over the game itself, in terms of what the game is about, what areas get focused on, and so on - they exercise considerably more control than the DM, in that sense, because if they don't want to go into the horrible dungeon of terror, and instead want to spend their time exploring overland, or setting up and guarding trade caravans, or whatever, then that is what the game is about - no matter than the DM spent days designing the horrible dungeon of terror.



I don't see it that way at all. A more structured plot-driven game can be written explicitly to set up meaningful choice points for players. With a more sandbox-y game, the DM has to make a lot of stuff up on the spot. The more off the beaten path the players go, what changes is that they're tapping into the DM in real time vs in advance.

The amount of influence the players have on the actual course of events is completely separate.

I've seen it where intricately pre-plotted games are built off of the PC backstories and driven by their choices, and I've seen it where open-ended improvisation leaves the players completely out of things.



> Personally I think that, talking of DM advice the whole "You can override the rules!" bit should be kind of the last thing DMs learn - not "Rule 0", not introduced immediately, but "The Final Rule", after they've mastered all the basics, learned what they SHOULD be doing. Also, I really feel like it should be accompanied with more of a stern "With great power comes great responsibility!" speech. Because, really, it does!



It does. However, I think that to be a good DM, you first have to learn how to do it without any rules whatsoever.

I recall one game where we met for the first session, the DM began laying down some narration about Greyhawk, and within a minute, someone was riffing off it and stepping in with interlude like "and the most common bird in Greyhawk is...". Things went downhill from there.

I suspect it's underrated here because most of us are already DMs who have some level of competence, but the first bar you have to get over is you have to be able to do improvised freeform narration. You have to be the only one talking, you have to be the voice of authority, and you have to make stuff up, and that stuff (gulp) becomes the substance of the game. For non-DM's that's really hard!

To me, adding in the rules is advanced DMing. First getting an idea of how they were built and the general principles, and eventually getting to the point of understanding how to use them. What the number should be, when to ask for a roll, how to manage player expectations.



> I say this particularly because virtually every abuse of "BECAUSE I'M THE DM, THAT'S WHY!", including my own, has come down to the DM being somewhat juvenile/emotional, and putting their personal desires ahead of what works for the game, or what the group clearly sees as right



All of which is true, and which, to my way of thinking is why it's important for the DM to take responsibility and not hide behind rules. If a PC dies, the DM is responsible, regardless of whether the character was felled by a lucky crit, the apocryphal falling rocks of DM dictation, or the player's own foolishness. Because the DM is responsible for everything. The sooner everyone understands this, the sooner he can be held accountable.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 2, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> And here is where you lost me.   If I said that  McDonald's should stick with hamburgers instead of chicken, your point  would not apply.  Playstyles are not technology.  The "new" way is not  better for many people.  It's a new flavor.  Better for some and not  better for others.  To this day a large chunk of the D&D/PF  playerbase enjoy games predicated on old school approaches.   It is  inevitable with the growth in popularity of a game that new styles will  arise and that is fine.  It's only not fine when people like yourself  imply that the old styles are out of date.
> 
> I get that some fraction of the playerbase has adopted some radically  different approaches to roleplaying.  I don't have a problem with that  fact.




Then we are on the same page here.  I'm objecting forcefully here to someone who _does_  think that there is One True Way (and one that doesn't take into  account the majority of old school approaches as well as any new school  at that).  There is not one old way and one new way, but a plethora of  both.  And all are welcome.  Claiming one single old school method (or  one single method from any source) is the sum total of the hobby is what  I am objecting to here.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 2, 2014)

Giving a DM more tools and then pronouncing that the DM can use those tools for nefarious purposes really doesn't fly when they can also use them to make the game better.  As I said before, a bad DM is going to run a bad game, and yes, the more tools you give him, the worse it will be.  But confining a good DM will also confine a good game.

A person can use fire to build and or use fire to destroy, that doesn't make fire a good or bad thing.  Sadly, most people are not self-aware enough to know whether they are poor DMs, so advice saying, "If you suck, don't do this," doesn't work.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 2, 2014)

Agamon said:


> Giving a DM more tools and then pronouncing that the DM can use those tools for nefarious purposes really doesn't fly when they can also use them to make the game better.  As I said before, a bad DM is going to run a bad game, and yes, the more tools you give him, the worse it will be.  But confining a good DM will also confine a good game.
> 
> A person can use fire to build and or use fire to destroy, that doesn't make fire a good or bad thing.  Sadly, most people are not self-aware enough to know whether they are poor DMs, so advice saying, "If you suck, don't do this," doesn't work.




Using the fire analogy, the sensible thing to do is to strongly suggest that most people limit themselves to reasonably-sized fires in sensible places, no? Thus with DM tools one would want to say "be really bloody careful with this!", which most editions fail to.

Also, have you, as a DM, ever, in actual reality, been confined by lack of DM tools to the point where your game meaningfully suffered? I ask because I sure haven't! Seems like such a far-fetched problem.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 2, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Using the fire analogy, the sensible thing to do is to strongly suggest that most people limit themselves to reasonably-sized fires in sensible places, no? Thus with DM tools one would want to say "be really bloody careful with this!", which most editions fail to.




Fair enough, bad analogy.  One is loss of life and property, the other is a game.



Ruin Explorer said:


> Also, have you, as a DM, ever, in actual reality, been confined by lack of DM tools to the point where your game meaningfully suffered? I ask because I sure haven't! Seems like such a far-fetched problem.




Well, no, I haven't...thanks to the advice past DMGs have failed to give me.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 2, 2014)

Agamon said:


> Fair enough, bad analogy.  One is loss of life and property, the other is a game.




Sure, but a game can be destroyed by bad DMing as surely as a house by fire. 

So good analogy, imo.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 2, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sure, but a game can be destroyed by bad DMing as surely as a house by fire.
> 
> So good analogy, imo.




Well, I would agree with you if you change "most people" to "newbies" for limitations.  Most bad GMs I've played under were bad mostly because they weren't malleable enough to player suggestions or to odd things happening during the game (on either side of the screen, I consider "no" a four-letter word).  Advice on how to deal with these kinds of things would help GMs with some games under their belt.

In fact, I'm all for using the KISS principle for GMing advice in Starter sets.  But the main game's DMG should indeed have all the tools any good DM needs to run his game, including the fact that all of the rules are suggestions (excellent suggestions, as they are presumably playtested, but suggestions nonetheless).


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 2, 2014)

Agamon said:


> In fact, I'm all for using the KISS principle for GMing advice in Starter sets.  But the main game's DMG should indeed have all the tools any good DM needs to run his game, including the fact that all of the rules are suggestions (excellent suggestions, as they are presumably playtested, but suggestions nonetheless).




Definitely, but I think it needs heavy caveats, not being treated casually.


----------



## Rod Staffwand (Jun 2, 2014)

The "rules" are a system to help organize and structure play in a fictional universe. They help answer questions like: "I swing my sword at the orc, what happens?" Unfortunately, practical limits mean that the "rules" cannot be designed in such a way to be applicable in all possible scenarios. Even with a 10,000 page Core Rulebook the simulation will break down. Most RPGs employ a DM to use common sense to determine when and to what extent the "rules" are applicable to the current scenario. Rule 0 is the explicit statement to this effect (or permission, if you will). In this sense, RPG "rules" are not rules in the manner of games like Monopoly, Poker or a tactical war game, they are "guidelines" or "tools" that give DMs and players a common framework and language to resolve fictional events in a consistent, coherent and enjoyable way.

In the parlance of design, this is a feature, not a bug. You can play an MMORPG (for example) all you want, but you can never leave the edge of the map. You can never attempt something that isn't pre-programmed into your character's skill set. You can only follow pre-ordained quest lines and goals and never devise your own. In TTRPGs, the DM can, using their creativity and the system as a guideline, determines what happens in these situations. In my mind, this is what makes it great.

I don't see how you could possibly reduce the DM's role to "Arbiter of Rules". Consider this scenario:

The party has defeated the dragon [using the adventure encounter and combat rules] and want to take its treasure horde back to town. Unfortunately/fortunately, the party and their hirelings can't possibly carry the entire pile themselves [using encumbrance rules]. They discuss it and hit upon the idea of going back to the orc encampment they wiped out to grab some wheelbarrows to haul the treasure. The DM looks at the encampment section in the purchased adventure and doesn't see any specific notes of wheelbarrows but the orcs had been using goblins as slave labor to build a massive series of earthworks. Wheelbarrows would be plausible in this concept, even if the adventure doesn't explicitly mention them. Should the DM nix the players' idea, make a roll or just say there is a wheelbarrow there? Let's suppose the DM decides that rolling a 1d6 is the most impartial method. On a 4+ there's a wheelbarrow. The players are lucky and find one.

The players load up the wheelbarrow but its still not enough. They ask if they can drag some of the chest back to town. The DM checks the rules and doesn't find anything about dragging chests but decides that it should be possible (Why the heck not? People drag stuff all the time). He looks at encumbrance rules again and judges that such a set up will cause the group to move at 1/2 the slowest movement rate possible.

It will be a long trek back to town from the dragon's lair and the DM switches to the overland travel section of the adventure, which states there is a 1 in 6 chance of wandering monsters every hour. The DM considers the situation (the overburdened, slow-moving group with a wheelbarrow, dragging chests through the wilderness) and decides to implement Rule 0 by saying they are making so much noise they will attract notice on a 2 in 6 chance each hour, despite the fact that rules or adventure say anything of the sort. The DM judges that the situation that the party is in has deviated enough from the assumed situation in the rules and adventure that it no longer applies.

The DM rolls the checks and, on the fourth hour, a 1 comes up. Another roll on the table provided by the adventure gets 4 ogres. The table describes the band as "greedy and cowardly". Using the standard encounter rules and the party's actions, the encounter starts of as a parlay rather than a combat. The party doesn't want a fight and try to bride the ogres with some of their treasure. Using the greedy and cowardly descriptor of the ogres, the DM decides that this is worth a bonus on their interaction rolls. The party ends up buying off the ogres with the two chests the fighter was tired of hauling around anyway. However, the DM also judges that the ogres have now spied the massive treasure that is within their grasp and decides that the ogres, being cowardly and greedy, will attempt to follow the party, hoping to ambush them in a moment of weakness (despite the fact that nothing in the adventure or the rules says to do so).

And, thus, play continues.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 2, 2014)

Rod Staffwand said:


> I don't see how you could possibly reduce the DM's role to "Arbiter of Rules".




You could, theoretically, do it by having rules for all those things! Obviously that'd be completely impractical, but frankly, some of the more horrifyingly complex implementations of some rules-sets, like GURPS or FUZION, came surprisingly close! 

PS - I <3 your name so much.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 2, 2014)

Hussar said:


> I imagine the sigh is because Ahn argues in favor of this style of play to the point where he claims that this is the one true way of playing because of toss away lines like this appear in most dmg's.
> 
> The fact that some of us reject this as railroading and think this is generally terrible advice has caused some disagreement.



Even prior to the question of whether it's good or bad advice is the question - what is it advice for?

I don't think Gygax is meaning that the GM can override a to hit roll or damage roll at any time. He's talking primarily about all the rolls in classic D&D that are associated with framing situations and the pace of the adventure (eg wandeing monster rolls, finding secret door rolls, open lock rolls, etc).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 2, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Also, have you, as a DM, ever, in actual  reality, been confined by lack of DM tools to the point where your game  meaningfully suffered? I ask because I sure haven't! Seems like such a  far-fetched problem.




Yes I have.  But not in the direction of not having enough power.  What I've occasionally lacked (in Feng Shui of all things) is  low powered tools and scopes.  I had a tank gun I could load with  flechettes, and I had  heavy machine gun on my tank.  But what I really  wanted and the game didn't give me was a supersoaker.

I've never  had, seen, or heard of problems with the DM not having powerful enough  tools where the problem was remotely ingame rather than one that should  have had the player banned.


----------



## Rod Staffwand (Jun 2, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> You could, theoretically, do it by having rules for all those things! Obviously that'd be completely impractical, but frankly, some of the more horrifyingly complex implementations of some rules-sets, like GURPS or FUZION, came surprisingly close!
> 
> PS - I <3 your name so much.




Thanks...my wands are as powerful as staves!

But, yeah, taken to its extreme you could posit a future gaming system (ala a Star Trek holodeck) that is so complex that the simulation becomes indistinguishable from reality (or some desired version of reality) and can handle anything you can throw it. Unfortunately, D&D doesn't come close and, thus, we must use the human brain as a poor man's substitute.

I also don't agree that the solution to "A DM can run a game into the ground" is "Force DMs to run the game on auto-pilot". The solutions are "Help the DM learn how to fly" or "Fly with a different DM".


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 2, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> Then we are on the same page here.  I'm objecting forcefully here to someone who _does_  think that there is One True Way (and one that doesn't take into  account the majority of old school approaches as well as any new school  at that).  There is not one old way and one new way, but a plethora of  both.  And all are welcome.  Claiming one single old school method (or  one single method from any source) is the sum total of the hobby is what  I am objecting to here.




That is why I deliberately tried to avoid the main debate.  I was just calling out the snippet where you implied old school meant model-T and the new stuff was 2014 or whatever.   My sole point was that the game is not necessarily improving when it gets a new style.  Instead it is varying and for some people that is good because the variant is an improvement for them.  The implication when you say model-T is that the old school approaches are objectively inferior in some way.

Perhaps you did this thoughtlessly or perhaps it reveals your mindset about your own preferences or both.  Either way it is annoying to people who enjoy the old school game and feel they are being told they like out of date old technology.  Kind of like telling some of us to go play on our atari 2600 and leave the big boys to the PS4 or XBox One.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 2, 2014)

Rod Staffwand said:


> *I also don't agree that the solution to "A DM can run a game into the ground" is "Force DMs to run the game on auto-pilot". *The solutions are "Help the DM learn how to fly" or "Fly with a different DM".




I don't know who suggested that, though. Can you quote whoever it was?

I've repeatedly and I think extremely clearly said that the solution is "explain how to DM in detail before you introduce the concept of fiat, and tell people not to use it unless they have to", which I think is precisely what you're saying.


----------



## Bawylie (Jun 2, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> That is why I deliberately tried to avoid the main debate.  I was just calling out the snippet where you implied old school meant model-T and the new stuff was 2014 or whatever.   My sole point was that the game is not necessarily improving when it gets a new style.  Instead it is varying and for some people that is good because the variant is an improvement for them.  The implication when you say model-T is that the old school approaches are objectively inferior in some way.
> 
> Perhaps you did this thoughtlessly or perhaps it reveals your mindset about your own preferences or both.  Either way it is annoying to people who enjoy the old school game and feel they are being told they like out of date old technology.  Kind of like telling some of us to go play on our atari 2600 and leave the big boys to the PS4 or XBox One.




I drive a 75 Vette. It's objectively inferior to most modern cars. I like driving it anyway & I don't care if newer cars are objectively, measurably better. I have fun doing my thing. 

"Your gas mileage is terribad,  you got no passenger side mirror, no airbags, no trunk, no back seat, and this thing smells like an oil field on fire - how can you drive this? Spend  a couple bucks and get something from this millenium!"

Eh - don't care. I love what I love. And I'm not offended if someone has a different feeling about it.


----------



## Rod Staffwand (Jun 2, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't know who suggested that, though. Can you quote whoever it was?
> 
> I've repeatedly and I think extremely clearly said that the solution is "explain how to DM in detail before you introduce the concept of fiat, and tell people not to use it unless they have to", which I think is precisely what you're saying.




Then we'll just have to agree to agree...wait...whaaaa?

Though I will say the word 'fiat' implies a certain arbitrariness (in the sense of being unreasonable or capricious) that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Rule 0 isn't advocating for dictatorial DM control but for practical common sense.

I thought there was a point in the thread that mandating tighter controls on DM 'powers' would somehow prevent bad DMing. It may have been the voices in my head again.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 2, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> I drive a 75 Vette. It's objectively inferior to most modern cars. I like driving it anyway & I don't care if newer cars are objectively, measurably better. I have fun doing my thing.
> 
> "Your gas mileage is terribad,  you got no passenger side mirror, no airbags, no trunk, no back seat, and this thing smells like an oil field on fire - how can you drive this? Spend  a couple bucks and get something from this millenium!"
> 
> Eh - don't care. I love what I love. And I'm not offended if someone has a different feeling about it.




Yes but this does not apply to gaming.  You might could argue that thac0 is objectively inferior to ascending ACs via some psychological analysis.  You can't argue though playstyles.  It's purely preference.  Any successful game that captures a broad audience is going to have variants arise.  That doesn't make the old original rules bad.   So your car analogy doesn't fit the gaming discussion.  Entertainment is that way.  It's hard to argue about something so subjective as gaming preferences.


----------



## Bawylie (Jun 2, 2014)

My car isn't "bad" either.  Still, despite the fact that it's inferior to modern cars, I subjectively prefer to drive it. 

And here's why the analogy works. Times have changed, tech and systems have changed. A lot of old stuff is practically obsolete by today's standards. But LIKING something isn't objective. So while, older editions and play styles aren't as objectively good, you can still like them and have plenty of fun. 

You can like something AND acknowledge other stuff is better. Or, I can, anyway.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 2, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> You can like something AND acknowledge other stuff is better. Or, I can, anyway.




While I agree with this premise (and pretty much everything else you've posted in this thread, we're certainly of like mind)...



Bawylie said:


> And here's why the analogy works. Times have changed, tech and systems have changed. A lot of old stuff is practically obsolete by today's standards. But LIKING something isn't objective. So while, older editions and play styles aren't as objectively good, you can still like them and have plenty of fun.




...I'm not sure what you mean by this.  I'm not so sure games really become obsolete the same way technology does.  Go and Chess are examples of very old games that are still very much played today.

And while I agree that anyone should be able to subjectively like what they want, if we're going to say something is objectively better than something else we need some sort of empirical data to back that up instead of just, "it's newer."


----------



## Bawylie (Jun 2, 2014)

You're right. Not all games become obsolete if we're talking about what's played today. Just like obsolete cars are still driven today. It doesn't mean they're not cars anymore - but they're not made that way anymore. They're better - not merely because they're new. 

Next's gameplay is faster, the numbers are tighter, the time-to-proficiency for new players is as close to zero as I've ever seen. Prep time is as low for me as 4E was (which is significantly lower than other editions - for me). Conversion is extremely easy. And very little of the game is fiddly or requires further clarification. 

The game, IMO, is better than what came before. I have objective measurements that support my conclusion - but of course you may conclude something else. No worries.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 2, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> That is why I deliberately tried to avoid the main debate.  I was just calling out the snippet where you implied old school meant model-T and the new stuff was 2014 or whatever.   My sole point was that the game is not necessarily improving when it gets a new style.  Instead it is varying and for some people that is good because the variant is an improvement for them.  The implication when you say model-T is that the old school approaches are objectively inferior in some way.
> 
> Perhaps you did this thoughtlessly or perhaps it reveals your mindset about your own preferences or both.  Either way it is annoying to people who enjoy the old school game and feel they are being told they like out of date old technology.  Kind of like telling some of us to go play on our atari 2600 and leave the big boys to the PS4 or XBox One.






Emerikol said:


> Yes but this does not apply to gaming.  You might could argue that thac0 is objectively inferior to ascending ACs via some psychological analysis.  You can't argue though playstyles.  It's purely preference.  Any successful game that captures a broad audience is going to have variants arise.  That doesn't make the old original rules bad.   So your car analogy doesn't fit the gaming discussion.  Entertainment is that way.  It's hard to argue about something so subjective as gaming preferences.




It _is_ old tech.  Anything up to 40 years old. You can say you don't _like_ it being called such.  But that doesn't make what is being said incorrect.  It's also classic - Sturgeon's Law applies, and classics become classics for a reason.  Just because black and white films are old tech doesn't make Casablanca a bad film - but neither does Casablanca being an outstanding film and possibly one of the best example of the screenwriters' art there has ever been (or possibly just the rawness of it with things like unscripted tears in La Marseilleise) mean that we should remain using technology from the 1940s.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 3, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> To me this is my biggest disagreement. Not just for D&D and RPGs, but any game or sport anywhere. I don't have a problem with house rules or homebrewing. I think hombrewing in fact is a temperature gauging the health of the hobby. But Rule Zero is bad game design in every respect I can think of. But I have come to respect your opinion over the years and if Rule 0 is that vital to you I'd like to know why.



It's vital because when all the other rules break down (as they inevitably will, once subjected to what the players dream up) it's all you have left.

It's vital because D&D, unlike pretty much any other game I can think of, is (or should be) malleable and shape-able to the moment; both by coded houserules and by on-the-fly rulings.  Many times you've said, as above, that "any game or sport" works in manner x and thus D&D should as well; I counter by saying the malleability of the rules is one thing that makes D&D specifically *not* like other games...which renders your comparison moot.

It's vital because most of the other broad scope "rules" are (or should be) no more than guidelines, and rule 0 is your tool to make the game function within those guidelines.

It's vital because the DM is not just a CPU taking in data and churning out results; she's a living breathing part of a living breathing game



> For me this is simply not possible. Games are codes. The DM has a code, a hard solve, behind the screen. The players are gaming in to achieve self determined objectives within it. (The game itself like Chess is too hard to solve for it to be a puzzle) The DM could try and play it like a player does, but for me it always comes down to a referee running Mastermind trying to play both sides of the screen. Are they purposefully supposed to forget the code? Are they supposed to pretend they don't know what's going on behind the screen? They simply don't have the opportunity to be both IMO.



D&D is not Mastermind, nor is it Chess; nor Monopoly, nor a whole bunch of other things.

Again, you're trying to shoehorn D&D into a perception you have of how games (should) work, except D&D just don't work the same as all those other games.  WoW is a code, written by a bunch of programmers; ditto for Baldur's Gate.  But tabletop D&D is not a code, 3e's best attempts notwithstanding, if only because the whole thing is (and must always be) far too open-ended for the "code" to ever be complete.

Lan-"if anyone ever deciphers the code, please let me know"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 3, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> It _is_ old tech.  Anything up to 40 years old. You can say you don't _like_ it being called such.  But that doesn't make what is being said incorrect.  It's also classic - Sturgeon's Law applies, and classics become classics for a reason.  Just because black and white films are old tech doesn't make Casablanca a bad film - but neither does Casablanca being an outstanding film and possibly one of the best example of the screenwriters' art there has ever been (or possibly just the rawness of it with things like unscripted tears in La Marseilleise) mean that we should remain using technology from the 1940s.



If the tech from the 1940's (or in this particular case, the 1970's) does the job better and-or lasts longer than the tech from today, why not keep using it, all the while incrementally improving on it, rather than tossing it out and redesigning it almost from scratch every decade or so?

Just because something is newer doesn't guarantee it will be better.  Windows Vista, for example, is newer than Windows XP...

Lan-"barbarian on technology"-efan


----------



## Agamon (Jun 3, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> You're right. Not all games become obsolete if we're talking about what's played today. Just like obsolete cars are still driven today. It doesn't mean they're not cars anymore - but they're not made that way anymore. They're better - not merely because they're new.
> 
> Next's gameplay is faster, the numbers are tighter, the time-to-proficiency for new players is as close to zero as I've ever seen. Prep time is as low for me as 4E was (which is significantly lower than other editions - for me). Conversion is extremely easy. And very little of the game is fiddly or requires further clarification.
> 
> The game, IMO, is better than what came before. I have objective measurements that support my conclusion - but of course you may conclude something else. No worries.




No worries at all, in fact, I agree with your conclusions.  I guess I'm just nitpicking at the use of objective, but I suppose that's not the main point anyway.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Jun 3, 2014)

Lanefan said:


> D&D is not Mastermind, nor is it Chess; nor Monopoly, nor a whole bunch of other things.
> 
> Again, you're trying to shoehorn D&D into a perception you have of how games (should) work, except D&D just don't work the same as all those other games.  WoW is a code, written by a bunch of programmers; ditto for Baldur's Gate.  But tabletop D&D is not a code, 3e's best attempts notwithstanding, if only because the whole thing is (and must always be) far too open-ended for the "code" to ever be complete.




Yes.  Exactly.

Tabletop RPGs and computer-based games are the same thing, despite the gaming industry's use of the acronym "rpg" in describing some of them.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 3, 2014)

Lanefan said:


> If the tech from the 1940's (or in this particular case, the 1970's) does the job better and-or lasts longer than the tech from today, why not keep using it, all the while incrementally improving on it, rather than tossing it out and redesigning it almost from scratch every decade or so?
> 
> Just because something is newer doesn't guarantee it will be better.  Windows Vista, for example, is newer than Windows XP...
> 
> Lan-"barbarian on technology"-efan




I'm currently using *spit* Windows 8...  I want my Windows 7 back!  And no reason at all.

I prefer many newer games because they do things that simply weren't being done in the 1970.  With the arguable exception of Torchbearer (and the Vornheim supplement for LoFP) I can't think of anything that improves on the Rules Cyclopaedia (or B/X or BECMI) at what they do.  But what they do isn't even close to Fiasco, Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, or Leverage.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 3, 2014)

pickin_grinnin said:


> Yes.  Exactly.
> 
> Tabletop RPGs and computer-based games are the same thing, despite the gaming industry's use of the acronym "rpg" in describing some of them.



Er...huh?

My post says they're not the same thing; you agree, and then say that they are.

Lan-"confused"-efan


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 3, 2014)

Lanefan said:


> Er...huh?
> 
> My post says they're not the same thing; you agree, and then say that they are.
> 
> Lan-"confused"-efan




Given the second half of his reply, I assume he missed out the word "not" from the sentence.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 3, 2014)

pickin_grinnin said:


> If I understand what you mean by "games are codes," I disagree.  They can be played that way, but don't have to be.
> 
> In addition, there is not always a hard solve.  That's just one way to play.
> 
> DMs play NPCs.  A good one plays the NPCs as characters with natural limits on their knowledge and with different motivations, just like PCs.



I agree there is not always a hard solve. I mean, I can't prove that, but I couldn't tell you the one for Chess either, so...

What games and puzzles definitely are not are stories. Games test pattern recognition. Stories are all about expression, not deciphering impression. Game can be played as storytelling, but it's almost invariably playing to make the game not a game at all.

But I'll agree "story play" is a single style of playing a game. It tends to lead to a negative feedback loop got players who play games as games, but ignoring success or failure. ignoring scores altogether seems to go hand and hand with this style. 

Also, a good DM has stats and tracked information about NPCs the players do not have so the can respond to the players when in conversation with the NPC. Rules for NPCs exist PCs should never have because the players are making those decisions, not a DM referencing numbers and rolls pulled from an NPC statmap.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 3, 2014)

cut


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 3, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> But I'll agree "story play" is a single style  of playing a game. It tends to lead to a negative feedback loop got  players who play games as games, but ignoring success or failure.  ignoring scores altogether seems to go hand and hand with this style.




Not even close.  What you describe here is a specific artifact of _1990s_  play spearheaded by both White Wolf and TSR because both of them were  selling games that were not fit for the purpose they were being put to  and then telling the GM to fix the gaps.  In TSR's case it's because  they took a system intended for gritty dungeon crawling (AD&D 1E)  and pitched it for high action fantasy adventures.  In White Wolf's case  the default playstyle for Vampire when following the rules ended up as  Superheroes with Fangs.  The problem was a mismatch between the rules  and the intended playstyle.

This was a big problem but one that  has largely been solved by people like Robin Laws and C J Carella in the  90s and the entire Forge/Storygames movement (particularly Evil Hat, Paul Czege,  Vincent Baker, and Jason Morningstar) in the most recent decade.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 3, 2014)

> lso, a good DM has stats and tracked information about NPCs the players do not have so the can respond to the players when in conversation with the NPC. Rules for NPCs exist PCs should never have because the players are making those decisions, not a DM referencing numbers and rolls pulled from an NPC statmap.




For me as DM I don't want that. I want the NPC to be established in play so that the actions of the players shape the game rather than me. 

Is Luke Skywalker incorruptible?  As a DM, I don't know. Let's play and find out together.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 3, 2014)

*Let me clarify again*

I am talking PLAYSTYLE.

I agree that some of the mechanics of 1e or even OD&D are fiddly and are not as easily comprehended.  I stated that in my original post.  Where you are wrong though is about playstyle.   Playstyle is like saying you like fast cars that handle well.   Not everyone does because fuel mileage etc...  But liking that sort of car is not about technology.   It's not outdated to like a fast car that handles well.  New cars could be created that are fast and handle well and they would be technologically superior in all likelihood.  The desire for that sort of car is like a playstyle.  New rules can be written that perhaps are better.  5e is actually doing exactly that.  They are offering a 2e experience (playstyle) using newer technology to do it.  They are trying to offer other playstyles too but the foundation is old school.

You can say that Thac0 is like technology.  You can't say things like Players challenged vs Characters challenged is technology.  It's not objectively true at all that one way is better than the other.  It's more a subjective preference and it always will be.   Same for DS mechanics or primary actor stance or anything else.  Those kinds of things are not technology.  Thac0 or advantage/disadvantage are like technology.

Hope that clears up what I was saying.


----------



## Bawylie (Jun 3, 2014)

Ok, it does. But pretty much everyone else was comparing and contrasting older system vs newer system. Your objection arose from a conflation of old system and old school play style, as you have now clarified. So please forgive my misunderstanding - I thought you were discussing what everyone else was discussing instead of steering the conversation to an unarguable point. My bad not noticing the shift/assuming there wasn't one.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 3, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> But I'll agree "story play" is a single style of playing a game. It tends to lead to a negative feedback loop got players who play games as games, but ignoring success or failure. ignoring scores altogether seems to go hand and hand with this style.




Not in my experience.  There is a difference between complete freestyle roleplay and including story in an RPG.  One can have a happy medium where the players work together to tell a story and the numbers of the game inform that story.

But I'm the GM and I'll use my informed opinion as to when the dice will be used help tell the story.  I'm not a slave to the dice, I'm their master.

I like that difference between RPGs and board games.  If I want to adventure by hard and fast rules, I'll play Descent or Wrath of Ashardalon or Mice and Mystics (though, it may not be surprising that I'm not very fond of adventure-style board games).


----------



## Bawylie (Jun 3, 2014)

Agamon said:


> But I'm the GM and I'll use my informed opinion as to when the dice will be used help tell the story.  I'm not a slave to the dice, I'm their master.




This. Same goes for the game system, too.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 3, 2014)

That was a misplaced "got" upthread which should have been a "for". As in, a bad experience for players treating games as games when with players treating the same as story. 

From the responses it sounds like the same Forge that hate-named D&D as "Calvinball" and "Mother may I" is considered a positive force, even though those same practices are being on so we might not allow the game rules (or dice) to rule the DM. I assume this is some kind of rejection of allowing the game to interfere with the story undesirably? Incidentally the Forge has historically held very low opinions of Rule Zero and games which include it.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 3, 2014)

Agamon said:


> Not in my experience.  There is a difference between complete freestyle roleplay and including story in an RPG.  One can have a happy medium where the players work together to tell a story and the numbers of the game inform that story.
> 
> But I'm the GM and I'll use my informed opinion as to when the dice will be used help tell the story.  I'm not a slave to the dice, I'm their master.
> 
> I like that difference between RPGs and board games.  If I want to adventure by hard and fast rules, I'll play Descent or Wrath of Ashardalon or Mice and Mystics (though, it may not be surprising that I'm not very fond of adventure-style board games).




I think it is a mistake to say that only story games produce stories.  All roleplaying produces stories.  The term "story game" may not be perfect I realize.  I think my own campaigns are always very story rich.  Lots of colorful NPCS, lots of interactions, lots of adventure and wonder.  My games though do not resemble what many people call story games though.  

I think one difference I've noticed is that in my style of game the PCs are solely focused on "winning", achieving their in game character objectives.  They never worry about making an interesting story.   The DM's job is to have a world that conflicts with the character goals, hopefully by it's very nature.

In other styles, the story is more choreographed.  The DM and players collaborate to deliberately set up interesting situations and then they use the rules to act out those scenarios.


----------



## Bawylie (Jun 3, 2014)

The Forge has no truck with me. 

As for "story," that's what emerges as a result of game play. Players set goals, DMs set obstacles. Those things collide - story is how that all shook out. 

So, no, it has nothing to do with game rules affecting the story undesirably. 

For me, when the rules get in the way of playing, when they are a requirement of play and not a facilitator, that's when I apply rule zero. 

It's the difference between "must" and "may."


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 3, 2014)

Hussar said:


> For me as DM I don't want that. I want the NPC to be established in play so that the actions of the players shape the game rather than me.
> 
> Is Luke Skywalker incorruptible?  As a DM, I don't know. Let's play and find out together.




I assume someone determines this at some point? What you are talking about isn't playing a game, but creating a story. You want to explore potential topics of shared discussion depending on what people feel like "exploring" (a postmodern term for invention) in that moment. Predefining these things quits allowing players to "invent"-explore and is therefore bad.

In games and gameplay Luke Skywalker is either one of the players or he is part of the game and already defined in the rules. That's so players can actually _game_ this as game content.  Remember, predict, track for themselves. IOW act strategically with "Luke Skywalker" (game design element) which changes all along the way as the game is played. Partly due to the players, partly due to the rules of the game.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 3, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> That was a misplaced "got" upthread which  should have been a "for". As in, a bad experience for players treating  games as games when with players treating the same as story.
> 
> From the responses it sounds like the same Forge that hate-named D&D  as "Calvinball" and "Mother may I" is considered a positive force, even  though those same practices are being on so we might not allow the game  rules (or dice) to rule the DM. I assume this is some kind of rejection  of allowing the game to interfere with the story undesirably?  Incidentally the Forge has historically held very low opinions of Rule  Zero and games which include it.




Well.  That's the first time I've heard Mike Mearls (who seems to be the original source for Mother May I) blamed on The Forge.  (And from memory Calvinball is a Gaming Den epithet along side Magical Tea Party). 

And game design of Storygames is such that _the style of story is the pattern that emerges from following the rules_.  The first game called a Storygame was Paul Czege's brilliant My Life With Master  - and it was called a storygame because it had a narrative arc with  defined ending and wasn't suitable for campaign play.  Instead the rules  of the game gave it the structure of a Gothic tragedy.  You talk about  pattern recognition?  Post-forge game design is _all about_ pattern recognition and matching the patterns you get as emergent play to the way stories work.

Edwards  chief motivation for his GNS essays was that the game (in specific  Vampire: The Masquerade) was at odds with the story - something he  blamed on simulationism.  And the driver of GNS is to produce narrative  games - games where the game mechanics work _with_ the story.  The two interfering with each other is something that in a good narrativist game _should not happen_.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 3, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> I think it is a mistake to say that only story  games produce stories.  All roleplaying produces stories.




For once we agree on something 



> In  other styles, the story is more choreographed.  The DM and players  collaborate to deliberately set up interesting situations and then they  use the rules to act out those scenarios.




Either that or the rules are set up such that the character creation  and resolution mechanics lead towards interesting stories.  The most  immersive games I know, and the ones that I am least likely to go  deliberately for the interesting are Apocalypse World and its child  Monsterhearts.  But they are set up so the characters are at cross  purposes (and especially in the case of Monsterhearts) genuine character  growth or change is a part of the mechanics.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 3, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> For once we agree on something
> Either that or the rules are set up such that the character creation  and resolution mechanics lead towards interesting stories.  The most  immersive games I know, and the ones that I am least likely to go  deliberately for the interesting are Apocalypse World and its child  Monsterhearts.  But they are set up so the characters are at cross  purposes (and especially in the case of Monsterhearts) genuine character  growth or change is a part of the mechanics.




It's hard to distill out a principle without offending but I am trying.  

I believe player motive can be used to at least describe some playstyles and their differences.  Obviously we all want fun but how we go about it is what distinguishes our styles.

In one playstyle, the player motive is to act as their character and try to achieve character goals in the most advantageous way possible.  The use of tactics, strategy, etc... are all geared towards making the game easy.   The DM's job in such a game is to make the players work for their rewards.  The story is about the quest to accomplish goals and the obstacles overcome, outsmarted, etc...

In another playstyle, the players and the DM are both working together to set up interesting situations.  The player will gladly have his character do something that we as observers might consider stupid if as a result the story being created becomes more interesting.   The player is not averse to his own character suffer or have set backs.   Figuring out ways to eliminate risk matter very little to these players.   Putting their characters in risky situations is what the game is all about.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 3, 2014)

And the goal of most Storygames and post-Forge games is to align the two. To set things up so the best play possible will lead to the most entertaining stories rather than the safest and least entertaining. A Going for glory, succeed or fail, is more entertaining than eliminating risk.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 3, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> And the goal of most Storygames and post-Forge games is to align the two. To set things up so the best play possible will lead to the most entertaining stories rather than the safest and least entertaining. A Going for glory, succeed or fail, is more entertaining than eliminating risk.




I think both approaches can be fun for some people.  It all depends on the stance you like to take as a player.  Inside your characters head or hovering above the game.    A good DM will make a risk mitigation game a lot of fun because he will create a world that does not bend to the will of the players easily.

All playstyles are about ignoring the things you don't care about and embracing the things you do care about.   No matter how hard any of us would try to dispute otherwise, playstyle preferences are totally subjective and equally valid.   

I personally just do not care for the story game approach.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 3, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> Well.  That's the first time I've heard Mike Mearls (who seems to be the original source for Mother May I) blamed on The Forge.  (And from memory Calvinball is a Gaming Den epithet along side Magical Tea Party).



Mearls was one of the three founders of The Forge though to his credit I don't think he was looking to design what they and you call narrativist games. The Gaming Den I've been unfamiliar with so that's news to me as to that term's original source. It still doesn't erase the prejudice with which it's been used against other gamers for many years by Forge followers.



> SNIP
> You talk about  pattern recognition?  Post-forge game design is _all about_ pattern recognition and matching the patterns you get as emergent play to the way stories work.



Most of this I know quite well, but this last. And perhaps from a gamer's POV some storygame play could be seen as including this behavior. But I've never heard the "post-Forge" (aka storygame) designers admit that games aren't stories or storytelling, but patterns and pattern recognition instead. And I simply cannot agree those games are actually "all about" pattern recognition and not actually all about group story creation. Pattern recognition happens in those games ironically, incidentally. It is not a focus IME. Just like the story aspect of life happens only incidentally in all games not designed to be storygames. It simply isn't in games because it is not part of the defined activity. 

Besides a litany of other abuses, what the Big Model did was attempt to conflate the story aspect of life with games, which is a dissolution of games and game theory. Not a growth. In its effect it has become a kind of final conclusion for amateur game theorist who can't puzzle out how to get out of the philosophical arguments it borrows from Post-Structuralist thought. Which has led to an atmosphere of "final conclusions" about games (and pathetically RPGs entirely) rather than a diverse and open-minded gaming community where dissenters don't need to be brutally convinced by... by practices the few of us now aren't engaging in at the moment.



> Edwards  chief motivation for his GNS essays was that the game (in specific  Vampire: The Masquerade) was at odds with the story - something he  blamed on simulationism.  And the driver of GNS is to produce narrative  games - games where the game mechanics work _with_ the story.  The two interfering with each other is something that in a good narrativist game _should not happen_.



The confusion here is that there is a story being made separate from the game in RPGs, especially in D&D (and let's not conflate gameplay with more storytelling just to agree.) Playing games just like living life doesn't ever result in stories. Games result in scores, wins and losses. They are the actualities of people acting in the moment within a pattern created by a series of rules. If anything, we need to create stories about games after the fact (because storytelling, unlike in Ron Edwards' opinion, isn't some unavoidable inevitability of being alive). 

Storygames OTOH are designed to create good stories. That is the Big Objective in all those games, though what counts as a good story is more defined in the rules by most of the better ones. RPGs may have been billed in the 1990s as telling stories, but D&D and all its rules were never designed to be so (which was obvious to pretty much anyone even then). They deliver on a hardcore gamer's dream of having the ability to game everything they can possibly imagine (and capably convey to the DM), not a nightmare scenario where gameplay itself is refused to even be acknowledged when playing (The "no rules are necessary for games" mantra).


----------



## Bawylie (Jun 3, 2014)

I'm not entirely sure I followed all that. 

I'll say I think the Forge took a formalized approach to Games without much reference to informal Play. And I hold up Tag, as a game with no score, no wins, no losses, but LOTs of Play.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 3, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> I'll say I think the Forge took a formalized approach to Games without much reference to informal Play. And I hold up Tag, as a game with no score, no wins, no losses, but LOTs of Play.



No, not really. Forge theory never really touches on games or game play in any way. They are all about storytelling and only storytelling using literary theory terms to conflate every other aspect of life into storytelling. There has never been any game theory coming from that community. They are involved in intentional (or unknowing) labeling error.

And Tag [you're it] is about losing and winning depending on if you are it or not. If you are it and quit trying to tag others so you're not it anymore, then the game is over. Usually the game's just called due to time or fatigue. You can play multiple times if you want to keep score, but winning and losing are central to it as a game.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 3, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> The confusion here is that there is a story being made separate from the game in RPGs, especially in D&D (and let's not conflate gameplay with more storytelling just to agree.) Playing games just like living life doesn't ever result in stories. Games result in scores, wins and losses. They are the actualities of people acting in the moment within a pattern created by a series of rules. If anything, we need to create stories about games after the fact (because storytelling, unlike in Ron Edwards' opinion, isn't some unavoidable inevitability of being alive).
> 
> Storygames OTOH are designed to create good stories. That is the Big Objective in all those games, though what counts as a good story is more defined in the rules by most of the better ones. RPGs may have been billed in the 1990s as telling stories, but D&D and all its rules were never designed to be so (which was obvious to pretty much anyone even then). They deliver on a hardcore gamer's dream of having the ability to game everything they can possibly imagine (and capably convey to the DM), not a nightmare scenario where gameplay itself is refused to even be acknowledged when playing (The "no rules are necessary for games" mantra).




While I get where you are going I think you are overly restricting the definition of story.  Any series of events is a story.  If I can tell you what happened yesterday that is a story.  It may be a lousy story but it's a story.  

So all D&D games lead to some sort of story.  Hopefully a memorable one.  Even in my style which is about as far as you can get from a story game, I still have stories that result.  

Anytime you are analyzing playstyles I believe you have to ask the question - what is the payoff?  In story games, the payoff is the story.  It's not in my playstyle.  The payoff for the players is achieving their goal against great opposition which they themselves were part of overcoming.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 3, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> While I get where you are going I think you are overly restricting the definition of story.  Any series of events is a story.  If I can tell you what happened yesterday that is a story.  It may be a lousy story but it's a story.
> 
> So all D&D games lead to some sort of story.  Hopefully a memorable one.  Even in my style which is about as far as you can get from a story game, I still have stories that result.
> 
> Anytime you are analyzing playstyles I believe you have to ask the question - what is the payoff?  In story games, the payoff is the story.  It's not in my playstyle.  The payoff for the players is achieving their goal against great opposition which they themselves were part of overcoming.




This is what I was getting at, myself.  Nothing about story games, we're talking about D&D, not Fiasco.

Playing D&D as a complex mathematical equation may be interesting for some, but not for others, and I'm guessing, not the majority (not that this matters). There are different plausible playstyles for the game, I can't see how there can be a feasible argument against that.  Then again, this is the internet, so some will try.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 3, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> While I get where you are going I think you are overly restricting the definition of story.  *Any series of events is a story.*  If I can tell you what happened yesterday that is a story.  It may be a lousy story but it's a story.



I think you're wrong here opening up story to "existing" like Edwards did (though he tried to step out of it later with Actuality). "Stuff Happening", the totality of existence is not a story. Story is a term limited to a specific cultural tradition (the narrative tradition) meaning both the actual thing used as reference to something else and the act of expressing that reference. We have stories about reality and fantasies. Reality and fantasies themselves are actually existing. 

However, story is also a term in the narrative tradition used to refer to the actual fantasies in our minds which are then expressed in reference to those imaginings by a speaker. The imaginings themselves in this tradition are called stories, but imagination itself is not a "fiction" - which would confine our inner worlds to the limited culture of narrative if true - even though  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] keeps repeating otherwise. 

Inventing could be making a fantasy which may then (but certainly not always) be treated in the tradition of storytelling. I think this is Edwards' Story Now he goes on about (which btw fits hand in glove with "authentic behavior" in the ideology his whole theory is basically a term for term copy of). However, treating invention as story is done emphatically _instead of_ treating the fantasy as game content - game content meaning the pattern existence of the actuality itself, not as reference or for narrative viability. In game terms it treats stories are solely sequential patterns design to evoke responses in others rather than to present a diverse interactive pattern to achieve objectives within.  

What I believe you are in danger of doing is placing no restriction on our cultural tradition of narrative, which in the 80's almost led to nearly loss every other detail in our cultural life.



> So all D&D games lead to some sort of story.  Hopefully a memorable one.  Even in my style which is about as far as you can get from a story game, I still have stories that result.
> 
> Anytime you are analyzing playstyles I believe you have to ask the question - what is the payoff?  In story games, the payoff is the story.  It's not in my playstyle.  The payoff for the players is achieving their goal against great opposition which they themselves were part of overcoming.



As I've just said games don't result in stories, they result in pasts. (Heck, even storytelling doesn't result in stories). There is a philosophical tactic used to confuse people by making a philosophical point an unavoidable inevitability to ensure its acceptance. Please don't fall for it from Edwards. 

I'm glad you're having fun playing your game in whatever style you're currently using. I'd be open to other ways, try out a storygame or two as well. Look for something that just doesn't fit in anywhere, something actually unique. Find games that challenge your current likes, but don't toss aside what you care about either. If actually winning or losing at games is paying off for you, then don't let others theories shame you out of it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 3, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> I think both approaches can be fun for some people.  It all depends on the stance you like to take as a player.  Inside your characters head or hovering above the game.    A good DM will make a risk mitigation game a lot of fun because he will create a world that does not bend to the will of the players easily.




They are.  I enjoy both at different times.



> All playstyles are about ignoring the things you don't care about and embracing the things you do care about.   No matter how hard any of us would try to dispute otherwise, playstyle preferences are totally subjective and equally valid.
> 
> I personally just do not care for the story game approach.




Vincent Baker, who was running the Forge at the end, has come out with the most immersive tabletop games I've ever played.  No hovering above the table.  The Story Game approach is "Decide what you want out of a game, then design a game that aids that playstyle".  Luke Crane also came out of the Forge - and his Torchbearer (based on his Burning Wheel engine) is all about logistics-heavy dungeon crawling where light, weight, and supplies are important.



howandwhy99 said:


> Mearls was one of the three founders of The Forge




[Citation needed]

I have never seen this claimed before anywhere.  And I do not believe it is true.  It is true that Mearls was a poster at The Forge - but his total post count was 46.  Hardly the post count of a founder member who had much to do with the community.

Where are you getting your information about The Forge and Storygames?  Because it is in direct conflict with what I read from The Forge, and what I see when I play games that grew out of the Forge.



howandwhy99 said:


> No, not really. Forge theory never really touches on games or game play in any way.  ... There has never been any game theory coming from that community. They are involved in intentional (or unknowing) labeling error.




What you call Forge Theory - GNS and The Big Model are about why we play.  What our objectives and motivations are. And that is a big part of the theory of games.  It's just at the philosophical rather than mathematical level.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Even though pemerton keeps repeating otherwise.



I've asked you before to stop imputing to me things that I have never said.

_Imagination_ is not a fiction - it is a mental faculty.

Imagined things, however, are fictions - that is to say, they (i) are not real, but (ii) are things that we talk and reason about as if they were real.

Here are two relevant entries (#s 4 & 5) from the Random House dictionary definition of "fiction", as appearing at dictionary.com:

* the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining. 

* an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.​
All RPG play requires these. Multiple imaginary things and events (persons, places, doings) are postulated for the purposes of reasoning about them.

The connection between fictions and stories is neither necessary nor sufficient. Not all imagining is story-telling. For instance, if I am training you to be a firefighter, describe a situation to you involving a burning building, and ask you what you would do in that situation, I am getting you to imagine a ficiton. But I am not getting you to tell a story.

And if you write a narrative history or biography, you have produced a story, but (hopefully) have not produced any fictions.



howandwhy99 said:


> Forge theory never really touches on games or game play in any way. They are all about storytelling and only storytelling



Here is Ron Edwards in his essay "Gamism: Step on Up":

_Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System, Color] provide an arena for the competition._​ 

. . . "among the participants" is too vague, at least from the standpoint of most readers. I was thinking of anyone involved in the play of the game, permitting just who competes with whom to be customized, but most people seem to think I mean "players" in the widely-used, non-GM sense . . .

Exploration is composed of five elements, no sweat: Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color ... but it's not a hydra with five equal heads. . .

Situation is the center. Situation is the imaginative-thing we experience during play. Character and Setting are components that produce it, System is what Situation does, and Color can hardly be done without all this in place to, well, to color. . . .

Gamist play, more than any other mode, demands that Situation be not only central, but also the primary focus of attention. You want to play Gamist? Then don't piss about with Character and/or Setting without Situation happening, or about to. . . 

The players, armed with their understanding of the game and their strategic acumen, have to *Step On Up*. Step On Up requires strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real world. . .

For the characters, it's a risky situation in the game-world; in addition to that all-important risk, it can be as fabulous, elaborate, and thematic as any other sort of role-playing.​
That is all about playing a game. It perfectly describes, for instance, playing Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain. It also seems to me to be the default approach to RPGing on these boards. The player characters face a risky situation in the gameworld (eg a dangerous dungeon that they are trying to loot). And the real world participants in the game have to "step on up", using their understanding of the game, and their cleverness, to perform well (eg building effective characters, making effective mechanical calls during action resolution, intuiting the nature of the ingame situation, such as where traps and secret doors might be found).

There is nothing at all in this passage about storytelling. Which is to say, your claim about the Forge is flat-out wrong.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 4, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> I assume someone determines this at some point? What you are talking about isn't playing a game, but creating a story. You want to explore potential topics of shared discussion depending on what people feel like "exploring" (a postmodern term for invention) in that moment. Predefining these things quits allowing players to "invent"-explore and is therefore bad.




I might quibble over your tone, and certainly over your conclusion that somehow I'm no longer playing a game, but the gist here is right. 

I, as DM, am more interested in exploring the game world than I am in setting up a pre-defined theme park. 



> lso, a good DM has stats and tracked information about NPCs the players do not have so the can respond to the players when in conversation with the NPC. Rules for NPCs exist PCs should never have because the players are making those decisions, not a DM referencing numbers and rolls pulled from an NPC statmap.In games and gameplay Luke Skywalker is either one of the players or he is part of the game and already defined in the rules. That's so players can actually _game_ this as game content.  Remember, predict, track for themselves. IOW act strategically with "Luke Skywalker" (game design element) which changes all along the way as the game is played. Partly due to the players, partly due to the rules of the game.




In the example, Luke is an NPC. But, my point is, very little, other than some very basic parameters (game mechanical elements like hp and the like, since he very likely will be fighting someone) needs to be pinned down before play. 

Again, as I said, is Luke corruptible?  Before play starts, I as DM, have no idea. I honestly don't know and I don't want to know. After play ends, now I know. Did Vader succeed?  Then yup Luke's not as strong willed as he might have been. And play continues from that point. 

In your style, that question is already answered. The player's interactions with Luke have to take into account your, as DM, feelings and interpretations. It places the DM right squarely in the spotlight. All the time. 

As a DM I never want to be in the spotlight. That's not my job and the best DM invisible to the players as much as possible.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 4, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> [Citation needed]
> 
> I have never seen this claimed before anywhere.  And I do not believe it is true.  It is true that Mearls was a poster at The Forge - but his total post count was 46.  Hardly the post count of a founder member who had much to do with the community.
> 
> Where are you getting your information about The Forge and Storygames?  Because it is in direct conflict with what I read from The Forge, and what I see when I play games that grew out of the Forge.



Again, I think he left right away, but he was there at the beginning. Edwards himself talked about it. And it's well over ten years now since this has been relevant so I admit I'm having trouble finding my previous references. Now only Nixon and Edwards are easily found as co-founders. But I assume you are discounting all the 1990s dialogue that led up to the creation of the Forge so it might profligate the One True Theory? If so, the circles of people were largely the same prior to its founding. Whoever originally determined "Mother May I" isn't as important as where almost everyone learned it from, as a piece of Edwards' promotion for his conclusions on gaming.



> What you call Forge Theory - GNS and The Big Model are about why we play.  What our objectives and motivations are. And that is a big part of the theory of games.  It's just at the philosophical rather than mathematical level.



No it's not. For year after year it was the exact opposite of a benign study simply noting what people said they actually did when playing games and what they liked about them. 

It was a dogma dictating "the way things really are" and endless amounts of invectives thrown at gamers who wouldn't get on board with it resulted. 

People went to the site asking about their games and the guru told them "the real meaning" of their gaming problems all the time selling "the real good way to play" which meant good storytelling (conflated with "fun"). Gamers had problems and they were manipulated into switching over to what they "really" wanted: storytelling. It was one person's power trip and a case study in groupthink and cult behavior. Megalomania is the best term I can think to describe it. 

I have no problem with philosophy asking why people like to play games (keeping score, winning and succeeding during play, avoiding losing when playing and ultimate failure, self-improvement at the game, gaining influence, team improvement and team camaraderie, friendly competition, good sportsmanship, etc. etc.)

I say they were never really interested in talking about play as it relates to games. They were talking about play when making up stories. It's a 180 degrees opposite. 

Ignore the "game" label when reading that philosophy, listen to the concepts and the terminology instead. They are almost 100% narrative theory, almost never about game theory or game play. They have no desire to create games as games. Games are always conflated as group story making - an aspect totally unnecessary to playing a game.

It is a pathetic shame our hobby has been ruined into story making and few even know it. Other gaming communities have done well to shield themselves to this. They hide from designing games along the One True Theory, but even they are unlikely to survive the march of these bearers of self-righteous certainty. And the community at large accepting a "fait accompli" attitude and ignoring or giving endless rebuttal to any outsider viewpoint only serves to reinforce the close-mindedness overtaking us.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 4, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Again, I think he left right away, but he was there at the beginning. Edwards himself talked about it. And it's well over ten years now since this has been relevant so I admit I'm having trouble finding my previous references. Now only Nixon and Edwards are easily found as co-founders.




I'm not surprised you are having trouble.



> But I assume you are discounting all the 1990s dialogue that led up to the creation of the Forge so it might profligate the One True Theory?




You mean where Edwards took the much more useful Usenet GDS theory that guided actions and tried to turn it into agendas?



> If so, the circles of people were largely the same prior to its founding. Whoever originally determined "Mother May I" isn't as important as where almost everyone learned it from, as a piece of Edwards' promotion for his conclusions on gaming.




The earliest reference I can find for the phrase applied to RPGs was Mearls in 2005.  Ron Edwards pretty much faded into irrelevance less than a year later when he tried defending rather than apologising for his brain damage comment - something the community lashed back against and he doubled down on.  So no it wasn't Edwards, and it wasn't The Forge.  It was Mike Mearls just before he was hired by Wizards of the Coast.



> went to the site asking about their games and the guru told them "the real meaning" of their gaming problems all the time selling "the real good way to play" which meant good storytelling (conflated with "fun"). Gamers had problems and they were manipulated into switching over to what they "really" wanted: storytelling. It was one person's power trip and a case study in groupthink and cult behavior. Megalomania is the best term I can think to describe it.




OK.  So now you're accusing Edwards of inventing GNS as a power trip?  And megalomania?  Have I got this right?



> I have no problem with philosophy asking why people like to play games (keeping score, winning and succeeding during play, avoiding losing when playing and ultimate failure, self-improvement at the game, gaining influence, team improvement and team camaraderie, friendly competition, good sportsmanship, etc. etc.)
> 
> I say they were never really interested in talking about play as it relates to games. They were talking about play when making up stories. It's a 180 degrees opposite.




You believe it's opposite because you personally have decidedly non-mainstream views on RPGs.  This is you being out of synch with the RPG community and the advice that has been produced in both the 2E DMG and in the Storyteller games. 



> It is a pathetic shame our hobby has been ruined into story making and few even know it.




Because we should all play only lightly hacked tabletop wargames where the role of DM is reduced to that of referee?  And nothing about the hobby should have been allowed to change since the 1970s?

Me?  I always find it a shame when, no matter what the hobby, people start worrying about the purity of the hobby.  And saying there is only one way to do it.  Most people have a point to what they were saying - and people new to an insight confuse their point with the whole sword (as I'm prepared to accept happened with GNS).


----------



## Hussar (Jun 4, 2014)

Hey, NeonC, even those of us playing in the seventies would barely recognize Howandwhy99's screed as playing DnD. Let's not forget, people like Weiss and Hickman were playing back then. 

Never mind looking at thing like the Bronstein (sp) campaigns which barely resembled h&w's points.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 4, 2014)

Hussar said:


> I, as DM, am more interested in exploring the game world than I am in setting up a pre-defined theme park.



I don't consider what I'm doing as presenting Toyland either. But let's be clear so we can understand each other. 

You are interested in "exploring" (actually inventing on the spot) the game world. Whereas I am setting up a predefined game world (of tried-and-true rigorous game design) for the players to actually be able to discover and manipulate - much of which they have altered even before they discover its existence. Is that accurate?

Either way is fine and can be functional game designs, but I think both really need to be told to players up front as to what's about to happen. IOW in the rules.




> In the example, Luke is an NPC. But, my point is, very little, other than some very basic parameters (game mechanical elements like hp and the like, since he very likely will be fighting someone) needs to be pinned down before play.
> 
> Again, as I said, is Luke corruptible?  Before play starts, I as DM, have no idea. I honestly don't know and I don't want to know. After play ends, now I know. Did Vader succeed?  Then yup Luke's not as strong willed as he might have been. And play continues from that point.
> 
> ...



That's a fair understanding, but I don't think it adequately gets where I'm coming from. 

You don't want to know if Luke Skywalker is corruptible before a game begins, a kind of definite yes or no state. 

In my game all elements change and are changeable. There can be no definite state about whether Luke _actually_ is corruptible or not. He can be changed, but the game may also shift to keeping him from being corrupted. 

As a DM I'm very specifically NOT taking actions in the game so all those shifts are a result of the players' actions in the game. The last thing I want this to be is about me or me in the spotlight. The game stands on its own I only relay it. 

Back to Luke, this would be an Alignment system question. Can an NPC "fall" to another alignment? Yes. Even a deity can change. Can he be saved? Also yes. 

...Okay, are there exceptions to "everything is alterable game content?" I can only think of Paladinhood, but that's _the whole point_ of that rule. The Players wants to be in a situation where any screw up means never going back. That nothing they do in game can reclaim that loss of paladinhood. And so the rules exist as they do to provide that situation.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 4, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> SNIP
> Me?  I always find it a shame when, no matter what the hobby, people start worrying about the purity of the hobby.  And saying there is only one way to do it.  Most people have a point to what they were saying - and people new to an insight confuse their point with the whole sword (as I'm prepared to accept happened with GNS).



Then let's not have the manner I'm putting forth be the "whole sword" either.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 4, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Hey, NeonC, even those of us playing in the seventies would barely recognize Howandwhy99's screed as playing DnD. Let's not forget, people like Weiss and Hickman were playing back then.
> 
> Never mind looking at thing like the Bronstein (sp) campaigns which barely resembled h&w's points.




Point 

I actually think that the major thing separating RPGs from refereed wargames is that the role of the DM is not what Howandwhy99 claims it is.  But Brown (and White) Box D&D are still "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures".  I don't believe the separation between the rules of a wargame and those of an RPG was complete until 1977 and Holmes D&D (or possibly until AD&D), and people will have continued playing in the hybrid style for some time after that.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 4, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Never mind looking at thing like the Bronstein (sp) campaigns which barely resembled h&w's points.



Having played it, I'm not at all sure Braunstein would even qualify as a campaign; it's more of a one-off - unless Wesely did a lot more with it than I know about.  

In play Braunstein more resembles a proto-LARP than anything else.  Its HUGE leap from a game design viewpoint was in giving each player one character with its own (admittedly pre-set) goals and motivations, with the player then set free to create their character's personality however they saw it; a big difference from the wargames from which Braunstein emerged.

Lanefan


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 4, 2014)

Lanefan said:


> Having played it, I'm not at all sure Braunstein would even qualify as a campaign; it's more of a one-off - unless Wesely did a lot more with it than I know about.
> 
> In play Braunstein more resembles a proto-LARP than anything else.  Its HUGE leap from a game design viewpoint was in giving each player one character with its own (admittedly pre-set) goals and motivations, with the player then set free to create their character's personality however they saw it; a big difference from the wargames from which Braunstein emerged.
> 
> Lanefan




That's my impression too - descriptions of Braunstein look to me like those of freeform LARPs.  And Braunstein was a one-shot game.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 4, 2014)

Fair enough. But it's still miles from the DM as robot POV that howandwhy99 espouses.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 4, 2014)

pemerton said:


> Imagined things, however, are fictions



No, they are part of the imagination. Fictions are parts of stories. Both are obviously real as we experience them they are only unreal in reference (again, as stories).



> All RPG play requires these.



No RPG requires fictions. Only storygames will ever require fictions. 



> Here is Ron Edwards in his essay "Gamism: Step on Up":
> SNIP
> That is all about playing a game. It perfectly describes, for instance, playing Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain.



There is more wrong with your quote than it seems you can possibly imagine. Do yourself a favor and get your head out of his philosophy. "If everything that makes sense in your world is Ayn Rand, get the hell out of Ayn Rand"

Edwards gesture of "gamism" towards actual game play and games is as biased as they come. Everything you've quoted only further seals that fact.



> There is nothing at all in this passage about storytelling. Which is to say, your claim about the Forge is flat-out wrong.



Every bit of Edwards' philosophy is founded on games as stories. They are "Characters" not playing pieces. They are "Situations" not designs. They are "Systems" (a term he often had to repeat was not mathematical system) not patterns. They are "Setting" and "Color" not Out-Of-Game elements not relevant to gaming or game play.

There are far more, seemingly endless biases and deliberate misrepresentations on his part, but I've not seen your posts for some time now to discuss them. Which makes me uncomfortable as I shouldn't have Mentioned you if I couldn't. I apologize for that.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 4, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Every bit of Edwards' philosophy is founded on games as stories. They are "Characters" not playing pieces. They are "Situations" not designs. They are "Systems" (a term he often had to repeat was not mathematical system) not patterns. They are "Setting" and "Color" not Out-Of-Game elements not relevant to gaming or game play.




I don't believe this!

We've referred to characters, either as Player Characters or as Non-Player Characters right back to the 1E DMG.  Gygax was happy with this terminology and it has been standard for RPGs ever since - while talking about playing pieces has not.  Because there is, as you say, a huge conceptual gap.  The rest of it is all also standard RPG terminology.

If this is your argument you are rejecting all RPGs right back to Gygax's AD&D, if not oD&D itself.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 4, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Every bit of Edwards' philosophy is founded on games as stories. They are "Characters" not playing pieces. They are "Situations" not designs. They are "Systems" (a term he often had to repeat was not mathematical system) not patterns. They are "Setting" and "Color" not Out-Of-Game elements not relevant to gaming or game play.
> 
> There are far more, seemingly endless biases and deliberate misrepresentations on his part, but I've not seen your posts for some time now to discuss them. Which makes me uncomfortable as I shouldn't have Mentioned you if I couldn't. I apologize for that.




In fact I've got a couple of questions for you.

1: Which RPGs do you play?
2: Can you find me any professionally published RPGs that refer to:
a: Playing pieces rather than characters?
b: Designs rather than situations, scenarios, or encounters?
c: Patterns rather than an RPG system?
d: Out of game elements not relevant to gaming or game play rather than settings?

Because going back to the 90s and even 80s I can think of RPGs that talked about characters and NPCs (hell, D&D did in the 70s), encounters and situations, called themselves RPG systems (like GURPS - the Generic Universal Role-Playing System (aka the Great Un-named Role-Playing System)) and settings like Warhammer, Darksun, Planescape.

Your problem here is quite literally that Edwards is using standard RPG terminology and so far as I can tell you really _really_​ aren't.


----------



## Bawylie (Jun 4, 2014)

A little strange to refer to Edwards' gibberish as standard game terminology. It only became standard after everyone started repeating that waffle.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 4, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> A little strange to refer to Edwards' gibberish as standard game terminology. It only became standard after everyone started repeating that waffle.




GNS wasn't standard before Edwards.  But the cases mentioned by Howandwhy and that I listed were all standards back in the 90s.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 4, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> I don't believe this!
> 
> We've referred to characters, either as Player Characters or as Non-Player Characters right back to the 1E DMG.  Gygax was happy with this terminology and it has been standard for RPGs ever since - while talking about playing pieces has not.  Because there is, as you say, a huge conceptual gap.  The rest of it is all also standard RPG terminology.
> 
> If this is your argument you are rejecting all RPGs right back to Gygax's AD&D, if not oD&D itself.



Gygax was making a game. One of the game designs in those games was labeled a "character" because he was accustomed to creating simulation games. No one was ever required or even expected to perform a fictional personality.  He was trying to make games emulate the stories he loved. And like almost every other living person in the 1970s he didn't think games were stories. D&D was chocolate & peanut butter, but at it's heart and soul it was always a game. Meaning this wasn't about enabling players to create stories, it was about making games where players had to succeed in game designs similar to how Conan was shown to succeed in Robert E. Howard short stories. However, unlike reading or writing a story the players needed to actually succeed at the game. Their Conans could fail, even die due to players failing at the game. 

"Character" and "Settings" are narrative terms usurped by Gygax to become game terms. Who knew that world would be flipped on its head and passed off as "the way it's always been"?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 4, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Gygax was making a game. One of the game designs in those games was labeled a "character" because he was accustomed to creating simulation games. No one was ever required or even expected to perform a fictional personality.  He was trying to make games emulate the stories he loved.




And trying to make games emulate the stories the author loves _is the purpose of story-games._  I don't understand your problem with them.



> "Character" and "Settings" are narrative terms usurped by Gygax to become game terms. Who knew that world would be flipped on its head and passed off as "the way it's always been"?




Who knew that things done at the creation of the hobby would be considered the way the hobby has always been?

RPGs are not wargames.  And you yourself admit that the terms used are the ones Gygax himself used.  There is very little always for RPGs that predates Gygax and Arneson.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 4, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> In fact I've got a couple of questions for you.
> 
> 1: Which RPGs do you play?
> 2: Can you find me any professionally published RPGs that refer to:
> ...



1. We play a helluva lot in our group. OD&D, Basic Blue Box, Pathfinder (a few), 3.5 (a lot), Necessary Evil, Deadlands Savage Worlds, original Marvel Superheroes, Silver Age Sentinals, Hackmaster, and some one offs of stuff like Call of Cthulhu, plus a lot of boardgames, some card games. Unless you count Magic:tG, which I don't play but many of the guys are quite good at. Plus a lot of console games, especially fighting games of which some guys are rated. These I just do on occasion casually. 

2. Gygax put in play narrative terms for games, something that obviously has come back to bite gaming in the tuckus. But games where studied for centuries before The Big Model came around  to redefine the entirety of RPG-land and more besides.

Again, in no way is that theory relevant to RPGs prior to the millennia. 2e and White Wolf withstanding, those games were simply very badly run. The first due to poor management, the second due to fear of going too far out of games and into stories with its rules. D&D was never in anyone's right mind designed to tell stories. It's a game through and through.



> Your problem here is quite literally that Edwards is using standard RPG terminology and so far as I can tell you really _really_​ aren't.



When did you join the hobby? Mid-90s at the earliest? Last decade? Your game terms are usurped from narrative traditions. And because previous designers failed to see the need to define those terms in actual game theory Edwards used them to deceive it redefining the whole hobby as the telling of stories (it never was before regardless of bad 90s press) removing the possibility of even playing a game as a separate, unique act. He's a narrative absolutist though. All existence is narrative for him.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 4, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> When did you join the hobby? Mid-90s at the earliest? Last decade? Your game terms are usurped from narrative traditions. And because previous designers failed to see the need to define those terms of actual game theory Edwards redefined the whole hobby as the telling stories (it never was before regardless of bad press) removing the possibility of even playing a game as a separate, unique act. He's a narrative absolutist though. All existence is narrative for him.




The game terms are usurped from narrative traditions because as you yourself said Gygax was trying to make games that work like stories.  As for Edwards redefining the whole hobby as telling stories, firstly Edwards reach hasn't been that broad - and secondly the most influential system of the 90s was quite literally the Storyteller System.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 4, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> And trying to make games emulate the stories the author loves _is the purpose of story-games._  I don't understand your problem with them.



You bothered to read the rest of what I wrote right? Storygames aren't "gaming the fiction" as Edwards so derogatorily put it. They separate the game design from "the shared fiction" and from that point on pretty much fail to be RPGs instead of storygames.



> RPGs are not wargames.  And you yourself admit that the terms used are the ones Gygax himself used.  There is very little always for RPGs that predates Gygax and Arneson.



Obviously you didn't read what I wrote. A label isn't meaning.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 4, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> You bothered to read the rest of what I wrote right? Storygames aren't "gaming the fiction" as Edwards so derogatively put it.




The thing is _Story games are games._  You have established in the past that you don't play or understand storygames.  You've made up your own definition of what storygames are that bears a little resemblance to freeform roleplaying and excludes a lot of storygames.  They are games where playing them with skill will end up with a story that looks very much like the sort of story they are trying to emulate, whether Teen Horror (Monsterhearts) Gothic Horror (My Life With Master), Cohen Brothers (Fiasco), Mad Max/Streets of Fire (Apocalypse World), or others.  But they are games - and in at least the cases of AW and Monsterhearts games where you gain XP and influence.

Your claims of what they aren't merely show that you don't know what they are and can't be bothered to look.

Edit: And labels do have meaning.  Why do you think we use them?  It's basic semiotics and basic communication.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 4, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> The game terms are usurped from narrative traditions because as you yourself said Gygax was trying to make games that work like stories.  As for Edwards redefining the whole hobby as telling stories, firstly Edwards reach hasn't been that broad - and secondly the most influential system of the 90s was quite literally the Storyteller System.



You remember GenCon 1990? How WW thumbed its nose to the entire hobby and claimed it wasn't an RPG, but a Storytelling Game? And most D&D players didn't want anything to do with them or telling stories after the Dragonlance debacle? I have no problem with storygames being in a different hobby. I don't think you realize that's where you are, in a different hobby. It's Edwards that made Storygames de rigeur for all "RPG" labelled games. 

Gygax was simply trying to make games. He wanted games that were actually games, but where you could do the stuff characters were said to do in books. Not games where game play was written out of the equation and every bit of content became ungameable.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 4, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is _Story games are games._  You have established in the past that you don't play or understand storygames.  You've made up your own definition of what storygames are that bears a little resemblance to freeform roleplaying and excludes a lot of storygames.  They are games where playing them with skill will end up with a story that looks very much like the sort of story they are trying to emulate, whether Teen Horror (Monsterhearts) Gothic Horror (My Life With Master), Cohen Brothers (Fiasco), Mad Max/Streets of Fire (Apocalypse World), or others.  But they are games - and in at least the cases of AW and Monsterhearts games where you gain XP and influence.



I've played Fiasco, My Life with Master, read Apocalypse World, and played and read quite a few you've not mentioned. I'm not coming to these opinions unprepared. They simply aren't RPGs because they never allow for role playing. And the point was never to make players authors of a story. Who needs to write stories when you could play a game instead? We're here to game and nothing is game content in those stories. Total Fail as to what RPGs are designed to do.



> Edit: And labels do have meaning.  Why do you think we use them?  It's basic semiotics and basic communication.



Gygax used labels, but didn't demonstrate their place in games. But he wasn't using them as characters or setting as anyone can read. Those are all game mechanics in every respect. 

And I assume you understand the irony of bringing up semiotics to gamers? Especially RPG players.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 4, 2014)

HowandWhy99 said:
			
		

> No RPG requires fictions. Only storygames will ever require fictions.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Mastering-as-a-Fine-Art/page21#ixzz33daaVtmQ




Ok, I don't understand this statement.  How can an RPG not require fictions?

What, exactly, do you mean by "fictions"?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 4, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> You remember GenCon 1990? How WW thumbed its nose to the entire hobby and claimed it wasn't an RPG, but a Storytelling Game? And most D&D players didn't want anything to do with them or telling stories after the Dragonlance debacle? I have no problem with storygames being in a different hobby. I don't think you realize that's where you are, in a different hobby. It's Edwards that made Storygames de rigeur for all "RPG" labelled games.
> 
> Gygax was simply trying to make games. He wanted games that were actually games, but where you could do the stuff characters were said to do in books. Not games where game play was written out of the equation and every bit of content became ungameable.




I'm wondering how you remember that.  Considering Vampire wasn't released until 1991 and didn't really become a thing until after that, what exactly are you remembering here?  And, while I wasn't really big into Vampire, or LARPing (which was later still), I don't recall anyone who was into either claiming that they weren't playing an RPG.  In fact, it was only those who didn't play the game, and felt the need to pooh pooh games that other people liked, that started claiming that Vampire or LARPing wasn't really role playing.


----------



## Agamon (Jun 4, 2014)

It's a shame a good thread about DMing advice has turned into navel gazing and spouting One True Way-isms.  I'd ask that perhaps agreeing to disagree might be the way to go, but then I doubt the thread is salvageable at this point.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> No, they are part of the imagination. Fictions are parts of stories. Both are obviously real



Allow me to reiterate part of the definition of "fiction" I cited upthread: "an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation".

Orcs, in the playing of D&D, are imaginary things, postulated for the purposes of reasoning about them - eg what happens to them when the PCs (also imaginary things) attack them with swords.

Orcs are not "obviously real". They are obviously imaginary. Polar bears are obviously real. Dodos were, in the past, real but now are extinct. Orcs have never existed. They are made up!

The imagination is real, in the sense that it is a real human faculty. The objects of imagination are not real, though - they are imaginary! (And "imaginary" is an antonym for "real".) In this respect the objects of imagination are like the objects of hallucination, of delusion, of false belief.



howandwhy99 said:


> I am setting up a predefined game world (of tried-and-true rigorous game design) for the players to actually be able to discover and manipulate





howandwhy99 said:


> Gygax was simply trying to make games. He wanted games that were actually games, but where you could do the stuff characters were said to do in books.



The players of D&D can't do stuff that characters are said to do in books. For instance, REH's Conan climbs sheer walls barehanded, fights off werehyenas, pulls himself of a cross, leads bands of pirates, slays hordes of picts, etc, etc. The players of D&D don't do any of that stuff. They sit around tables, rolling dice, performing simple arithmetic calculations, and making various notations on bits of paper.

The only connection between the player of D&D, and REH's character of Conan, is that a player of D&D sometimes _imagines_ his/her PC doing things like Conan did. In that respect, the game is different from chess - it is no part of playing chess to imagine the pieces fighting, for instance, or to ask what colour the black queen's eyes are. Whereas those sorts of things are part and parcel of playing D&D (for instance, when meeting an NPC queen, it's perfectly permissible for a D&D player to ask the GM what colour the NPC's eyes are, and then declare "I compliment her on the [insert colour word here] shade of her eyes - does that give me a bonus to the reaction roll?").

Your gameworld, predefined or not, is also imaginary. The land of Greyhawk does not exist. Maure Castle does not exist. The Duchy of Ursnt does not exist. These are all made up. As the old logo used to have it, they are "Products of the Imagination".



howandwhy99 said:


> Gygax was making a game. One of the game designs in those games was labeled a "character" because he was accustomed to creating simulation games. No one was ever required or even expected to perform a fictional personality.



Edwards has never said that RPGing requires or expects the performance of a fictional personality. In fact he expressly denies this, thereby agreeing with you. He even has a label to describe RPGing in which no one is required or expected to perform a fictional personality. He calls it "pawn stance".

However, Gygax absolutely thinks that RPGing requires imaginary _persons_ (called characters, both player- and non-player- versions thereof). He thinks they're so important that he dedicated pages and pages of rules explaining how to create them as, and out of, game elements. Some of those game elements do not engage the game fiction (eg hit points, experience points, arguably saving throw bonuses and experience levels). Others of them do. For instance, the rules for how much time actions take in melee are to be worked out based on imaginative projection from the established fictional situation. Consider, for instance, p 100 of the PHB: "The time required to cast (read) a scroll spell is exactly that shown for the memorized spell. Of course, this assumes the scroll is in hand and ready to read". That is not a rule about the _player's_  hand. It is a rule that engages the _imagined hand_ of the (imaginary) player character.

Consider, also, p 64 of the same book: "The relatively short casting time for those spells with a material component assumes the magic-user as decided upon which spell he or she will employ, and the material or materials needed are at hand . . . If this is not the case, there will be a delay commensurate to the situation. . . having to search through a pack to locate some component is as good as wasting 5 segments - 30 seconds."

In the passage just quoted, once again the "hand" in question is not that of the player. It is the imagined hand of the imaginary character. The situation, also, is not a real situation - the delay is not commensurate to some event taking place in the real world. The delay is commensurate to some _imagined_ event, such as the (imaginary) character searching through his/her (imaginary) backpack.



howandwhy99 said:


> Edwards gesture of "gamism" towards actual game play and games is as biased as they come.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Nothing in the passage I cited asserts or implies that games are stories. Consider the most important sentence I quoted: "The players, armed with their understanding of the game and their strategic acumen, have to Step On Up. Step On Up requires strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real world". This is a statement about the players. It states what they need - namely (i) an understanding of the game, and (ii) strategic acumen. It then states what they have to do - namely, evince "guts" and strategise and perform.

That is a perfect description of what a chess player does. A chess player, armed with his/her understanding of the game of chess (eg rules, known openings and defences, having read through games played by past masters, etc) and with his/her strategic acumen, has to step on up and perform in the real world.

It is not remotely an adequate description of what a novelist does. A novelist does not need an understanding of any game, nor does s/he need strategic acumen. A novelist does need guts, but the way s/he evinces guts is completely different - she puts her creative product out in the world for others to see and therefore (by implication) to subject to aesthetic evaluation.

In short, nothing in Edwards' description of gamism bears any connection to storytelling.



howandwhy99 said:


> They are "Characters" not playing pieces. They are "Situations" not designs. They are "Systems" (a term he often had to repeat was not mathematical system) not patterns. They are "Setting" and "Color" not Out-Of-Game elements not relevant to gaming or game play.



As others have noted, player characters have been called just that - _characters_ - from the beginning of the hobby. In the PHB (p 103), Gygax says this under the heading of "Traps, Tricks and Encounters":

During the course of an advanture, you will undoubtedly come across various forms of tricks and traps, as well as encounter monsters of one sort or another. While your DM will spend considerable time and effort to make all such occurrences effective, you and your fellow players must do everything within your collective power to make them harmless, unsuccessful or profitable.​
And earlier, on p 101, he says:

*Dungeon Adventures: *Adventures into the underworld mazes are the most popular. The party equips itself and then sets off to enter and explore the dungeon of some castle, temple or whatever.​
These all fall under Edward's definition of _situation_ - they are "the imaginative-thing we experience during play." That is, in playing Gygax's D&D, we experience underworld mazes with traps we want to avoid being harmed by, tricks we want to render unsuccessful, and encounters from which we hope to profit. In each case the consequence occurs both to the player and that player's character: harming the character is harming the player, by worsening his/her position relative to the gameplay (eg reduced capability to make "moves" during play); tricking the PC involves also tricking the player, into making an ill-judged move; profit to the PC is profit to the player, because of the XP-for-gold rule, which means that profit to the PC is an improved game position and increased capability for the player. (In AD&D, magic items are a double profit because they both confer XP _and_ directly confer an improved game position. For gold pieces this is not the case - they only _indirectly_ confer an improved game position, because you have to engage in further gameplay in order to get the benefits of your PC spending his/her money.)

We also can see here _setting_ - the dungeon and its backstory - but these are not relevant to play in and of themselves, but rather as material to be engaged in play - ie as situations. So far from Edwards rendering "every bit of content ungameable" (a phrase you use in a post not far upthread), Edwards is insisting that only gameable content is relevant to gamist play. He is saying that those RPGers who enjoy the setting and the story for its own sake are, from the point of view of Gygaxian D&D play, "pissing about" with irrelevant stuff.

That there is _colour_ here I think we can take utterly for granted - for instance, in quoting the spell-casting rules above I elided the references to the "numerous pockets and folds of the magic-user's garb"; and I haven't cited any of the level titles, all of which help establish the colour of the gameworld. That there is _system_ is also obvious - for instance, on p 105 of the PHB Gygax has a heading "combat procedures", and _procedures_ here is a synonym for _system_. And it is not a mathematical system, by the way - as elaborated on pp 61ff of the DMG it is a series of steps for processing action declarations and determining the results of them.



howandwhy99 said:


> I've not seen your posts for some time now to discuss them. Which makes me uncomfortable as I shouldn't have Mentioned you if I couldn't. I apologize for that.



If you want to ignore me, whatever. That's no skin of my nose. But if you're going to impute opinions to me that I don't hold, have never asserted, and have _explicitly denied_ in posts that you have read and to which you have replied, then I will respond to set the record straight. You're entitled to your view about RPGing, but it's against board rules to misrepresent or make false imputations about other posters.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 4, 2014)

Agamon said:


> It's a shame a good thread about DMing advice has turned into navel gazing and spouting One True Way-isms.  I'd ask that perhaps agreeing to disagree might be the way to go, but then I doubt the thread is salvageable at this point.



Good morning. Yes, it is possible we can stop. I think most people's points have been covered. Not to leave anyone's posts in the lurch here, but I don't foresee a handful of posters (me included) stopping their disagreements with each other in any thread any time soon.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 4, 2014)

Sorry @_*pemerton*_ lost my finished reply to a DC, and I needed an energy surge to reply again, which took a couple of days. 



pemerton said:


> As a GM I'm not trying to tell a story. I'm trying to frame the players (via their PCs) into difficult situations. If I do my job properly, and the game's mechanics work properly, then some sort of story should emerge.




That is interesting, I take this approach sometimes, but generally I try fit cool moments in the story. So first I think-up a story from which I can frame PC into difficult situations not the other way round.
But with regards to how you design adventures - how do you go about that process? Do you design difficult situations/frames and then work a story around it?



> I don't really see what work "primarily combat" is doing here. Social interactions and meeting new people are important in my game too. And I guess would be important in  @_*Hussar*_'s game.




I was not at all suggesting social interactions and meeting new people are not important to yours or @_*Hussar*_'s game. XPs rewarded due to combat are around 10% in my campaign. Thinking up the idea and researching in the town archives (if new town) would earn XP in my campaign. Travelling new roads would earn XP...etc  
We run XP different to the x sessions/DM desires = level increase or the generic XP earning per the DMG.
There was no slight intended.   



> Another very important part of my game is the players (and thereby their PCs) learning the campaign backstory. But I generally prefer that the backstory come out in the context of resolving a situation - say, in the context of interacting with an NPC - then via a "download" triggered by (say) the PCs going to a library. Here's an example of the last purely exploratory scenario I ran. Here are two links to some examples of the sorts of social encounters I enjoy, which are my typical way of bringing out and/or establishing backstory.




I understand that, but I don't mind certain "downloading" being done via research or creative thinking by the PCs, naturally its also dependant on what type of information is asked for/given.



> The other part of this, though, is that Conan climbs plenty of walls, mountains, cliffs etc without stocking up on gear first. And in one of the REH stories (Rogues in the House?) he breaks in via sewers without having checked the library archives first.




I think its unfair to judge that DM based on a Conan book. 



> I find that emphasising preparation, which in many respects is an aspect of PC-building (eg adding items onto equipment lists), can detract from actual resolution, which is where I prefer play to be focused.




That style certainly speeds up play and getting through the adventure faster. 
I use prep time for role-playing purposes which again allows for XP gain in our campaign. 
So while in the town archives they meet persons of interest and engage (it fleshes out the campaign world and allows me to draw on such experiences or characters in future stories/ideas). Same with merchants, taverns and inns - not everything is driven into the current adventure they're on.



> If the players in my game took their PCs into the sewers to try to sneak into another part of the city, then that's what we're resolving. In the context of 4e, Dungeoneering and Streetwise checks would be the order of the day (and would help resolve the question of whether or not the PCs got any useful information in advance). If checks succeed, the narration suggested by  @_*Hussar*_ (a PC sticks his/her head up through a grate) works fine. If checks fail and things seem to be grinding to a halt, some sort of complication is in order - maybe the PCs bump into their rivals in the sewer, heading the other way! Or if that would be too distracting, the same grate technique can work but this time the PC is seen as s/he is ducking back down - so now the PCs are on a tighter clock.
> 
> This link describes how I handled some of the last big Underdark crawl in my campaign.




I have no issue with this. I think my posts with @_*Neonchameleon*_ reflect that, I just wouldn't discount the possibility of them being lost...of course they can find their bearings again with actions being done.



> I think you'd find my group gives plenty for a GM to work with.



Cool.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 4, 2014)

Instead of trying to force the "story gaming" crowd into another whole genre, I believe it's better to just say that the roleplaying tent has gotten bigger.  In all cases, a role is being played.  Admittedly in story games it goes beyond just that.

I do wish we could have better language though.  I don't care for the narrative story game crowd and I wish I could quickly identify a game as not my style without having to practically interview the DM.   

I do agree that at the beginning the roleplaying world did not include the story game concept.  The idea of characters authoring game world content outside their characters would have been met with incredulity.  That doesn't make it wrong.  Automatic transmissions would have likely astounded people too.  It just means that there is a lot of confusion in roleplaying today because some people think their preferred style is an advancement and not just another flavor.

Imagine a person has just introduced a new flavor of ice cream.  What if he kept saying that his flavor offered everything vanilla did and more? He could argue all day long but some people still like vanilla instead of his new flavor.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 4, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> Instead of trying to force the "story gaming" crowd into another whole genre, I believe it's better to just say that the roleplaying tent has gotten bigger.  In all cases, a role is being played.  Admittedly in story games it goes beyond just that.




Here we agree 



> I do wish we could have better language though.  I don't care for the narrative story game crowd and I wish I could quickly identify a game as not my style without having to practically interview the DM.




Fair enough   Being on the same page is a good thing.



> I do agree that at the beginning the roleplaying world did not include the story game concept.  The idea of characters authoring game world content outside their characters would have been met with incredulity.  That doesn't make it wrong.  Automatic transmissions would have likely astounded people too.  It just means that there is a lot of confusion in roleplaying today because some people think their preferred style is an advancement and not just another flavor.




And here I believe you to be incorrect.  Second and third generation, possibly.  But first generation, Lake Geneva and co, the group that gave us Xagyg, Melf the Male Elf, "Medium" Rary, and the brothers Bigby, Rigby, Sygby, and Digby I believe would have been fine with it.  Theirs was not a group to let canon or what little tradition they had stand in the way of fun.

How do I know this?  Other than Mike Mornard (the only player who was in both Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign and Gygax' original Greyhawk campaign) has a continual refrain as to why anything the way it is of "We made up some  we thought would be fun" (he's also in the process of editing his anecdotes of very early D&D to publish as a kickstarter).  First the origins of D&D - back in the original Braunstein.  Arneson took the intended setting (banana republic), made changes to it and the background on the player side (added the CIA and a CIA badge that passed inspection) and proceeded to subvert the entire game.  But that's not D&D.

Let's look at another case of the players changing and adding backstory to the setting.  The origins of the Cleric.  Again, as relayed by Mike Mornard.



			
				William Crolley as passed on by Mike Mornard said:
			
		

> _Ahem. I was there.
> 
> In CHAINMAIL there were wizards that functioned as artillery.
> 
> ...



The players again added things to the setting - a vampire hunter based on Peter Cushing.  It's not Christian roots - it's Hammer Horror.  Player driven.  As, for that matter was the presence of all the Tolkeinesque PC races in D&D.  Gygax didn't like Tolkein.  But his players did.  So the players added Tolkeinesque races.

And let's go a little more extreme on the Tolkeinesque front. Mornard played a baby balrog in both the original Blackmoor and the original Greyhawk.  And didn't just play a baby balrog (it had to be a baby) - he made things up on the fly like putting on an asbestos press hat and infiltrating the wizard's lair by pretending to be a reporter from the Balrog Times, using his thumb as the flash.  You know what didn't exist in the setting before he tried that sort of shenanigans?  Either reporters or flash photography.  But it was cool, it didn't break the setting, and it made things more fun.  So the player was allowed to make it up.

So no I don't buy any argument that the original D&D players weren't allowed to author game world content outside their characters.  Because there is plenty of evidence of them doing _exactly that_  It's only after setting started being published and used, and the game got away from Lake Geneva that there was any problem with this.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 4, 2014)

Hussar said:


> I'm wondering how you remember that.  Considering Vampire wasn't released until 1991 and didn't really become a thing until after that, what exactly are you remembering here?  And, while I wasn't really big into Vampire, or LARPing (which was later still), I don't recall anyone who was into either claiming that they weren't playing an RPG.  In fact, it was only those who didn't play the game, and felt the need to pooh pooh games that other people liked, that started claiming that Vampire or LARPing wasn't really role playing.




- Incoming appeal to authority with limited merit.  Consider at your own risk


Well prior to 1991 and through several years after that I was good friends with Rob Hatch.  (For those unaware, you will find his name rather prominent in many of the WoD books, among others)
We played a lot of RPGs.  A fair portion of my WoD books were gained through Rob.  We also played D&D and GURPS (a lot of GURPS).  I can't speak for Rob and Rob wasn't a spokesman for WW.  But there was never the SLIGHTEST doubt that role playing was the thing.  Now, "storytelling" was certainly a major buzz phrase for them.  And, IMO, it would be silly to claim that there isn't a clear difference between the narrative / social interaction focus in the design intent and marketing of WoD compared to the common "kill the orc" expectation of D&D.  So there was a difference.  But WW was just calling differences in roleplaying styles, not rejecting roleplaying by any means.

Now, if someone were to claim that certain groups of players might have abused language this way to achieve their own version of geeks calling geeks "geeks", I could believe that.  I did not see it first hand.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> at the beginning the roleplaying world did not include the story game concept.  The idea of characters authoring game world content outside their characters would have been met with incredulity.



Just a footnote to [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]'s post above:

In this thread I already mentioned the early 80s Puffin book "What is Dungeons & Dragons?" That book involves players authoring gameworld content outside their characters in the form of backstory - eg mentors and rival colleges, in the case of a magic-user PC.

That book also takes for granted that PCs will have fictional personalities, and it assumes that players will play their PCs having regard to those fictional personalities eg that the player of a halfling will have his/her PC respond with greater concern to a fellow halfling being tortured, than s/he would respond to a human suffering in the same way.

I don't assert that either of these things is inherent to roleplaying. But they are not recent innovations.

And here is Gygax on p 112 of his DMG:

[T]here must be some purpose to it all. There must be some backdrop against which adventures are carried out, and no matter how tenuous the strands, some web wich connects the evil and the good, the opposing powers, the rival states and various peoples. . .

[C]haracters being as as less than pawns, but as they progress in experience, each eventually realizes that he or she is a meaningful, if lowly peace in the cosmic game being conducted. When this occurs, players then have a dual purpose for their play, for not only will their player characters and henchmen gain levels of experience, but their actions will have meaning above and beyond that of personal aggrandizement.​
This is not ambiguous, it is crystal clear. Gygax is advising that the campaign should have rich colour, and thematic weight, with which the players will gradually but increasingly become emotionally engaged. They will still be playing to "win" (earn XP, gain levels) but that won't be the _only_ reason they are playing.

There are also some interesting quotes from Gygax, writing in 1974, in the blog that Neonchameleon linked to. Gygax, as quoted, refers to

the different aims of a fantasy novel (or series of novels) and a rule book for fantasy games. The former creation is to amuse and entertain the reader through the means of the story and its characters, while the latter creates characters and possibly a story which the readers then employ to amuse themselves. . .

[Iin fantasy] there are no absolutes or final boundaries simply because it does draw upon all of these [literary] sources with the bonus of individual imagination added by those who play it.​
Gygax also refers to the players identifying with, and relating to, their PCs:

Would a participant in a fantasy game more readily identify with Bard of Dale? Aragorn? Frodo Baggins? or would he rather relate to Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, or Elric of Melnibone?​
By way of contrast, here is Ron Edwards nearly 30 years later describing narrativist RPGing:

All role-playing necessarily produces a sequence of imaginary events. Go ahead and role-play, and write down what happened to the characters, where they went, and what they did. I'll call that event-summary the "transcript." But some transcripts have, as Pooh might put it, a "little something," specifically a theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a certain charge they generate for the listener or reader. If a transcript has one (or rather, if it does that), I'll call it a story. . .

The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during the role-playing? The answer is, *absolutely nothing*. We don't know whether people played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, or any combination of the three. A story can be produced through any Creative Agenda. The mere presence of story as the _product_ of role-playing is not a GNS-based issue. . .

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be _addressed_ in the process of role-playing.​
Gygax, in suggesting that players will come to have a "dual purpose" for playing the game, is opening the door to narrativist play: that the reason for playing the game won't simply be to show your guts and acumen by earning XP, but also to do things that _have meaning_, that is, _address an engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence_, such as good and evil, political disagreements or the fates of peoples.

Now that is not the _only_ door that Gygax is opening. The other form of "dual purpose" and meaningfulness is that the players become caught up in someone else's story - for instance, they identify with the already-authored campaign setting and care abouot the place of their PCs within that setting.

These are two different, but completely viable, ways of developing that "dual purpose" that Gygax refers to. Historically, in the 80s and then 90s, TSR went through the second of those two possible openings. But Gygax's words leave the other, "storygaming" alternative equally open, and I am very confident that I am not the only D&D player to have gone down that path in the 80s, or even earlier.


----------



## Rod Staffwand (Jun 5, 2014)

Oh, wow, catching up on this thread after a few days off, and it's pretty dizzying. There was some sort of tangent that included the Forge and the Storyteller games of 90s that I'm still trying to figure out...

I think the crux is: D&D is an "Role-Playing Game" wherein "role-playing" is entirely optional (in the sense that you're required to create a personality, history and complex relationship webs for your character). Holmes D&D doesn't even mention "role-playing" in that sense. It goes through character creation and there's passing mention of playing "bold adventurers" or some such, but nothing that prompts playing your character any different than you would a war game asset (i.e. optimally with regard to succeeding at the challenges placed before you).

Indeed, I don't believe ANY edition of D&D gives mechanical weight to role-playing AT ALL, save for perhaps suggestion the DM take such things into account when determining results. The closest the rules have is Alignment, which should not be conflated with 'personality' or 'character'. Not all LG characters have the same personality.

However, I believe the custom of "acting as your character" probably started very early on in the RPG life cycle. You inevitably get players who go: "Brontar CHARGE!" in the face of overwhelming odds. For many, playing someone else and not simply using a character as the game-world stand in for yourself has a VERY strong appeal. DMs also, in seeking to capture the feeling of their favorite fantasy stories, write more complicated narratives replete with complex NPC motivations and reams of backstory rather than keeping with the "PCs vs. the Dungeon" setup of the game's origin.

[SIDENOTE: This is to say nothing of players whose primary motivation is getting vicarious thrills from taking risks. To them, success or failure or the life or death of their PC is secondary to finding out "what happens if someone sits on the lich's throne". They can't be said to be playing a game in the wargame sense.]

I think we can all agree that these customs grew in popularity, with later versions of D&D explicit mentioning creating personalities for your character and so on (I believe 2E on, at least did this). "Role-playing" became the norm. The Storyteller games decided to bring this to the forefront, as did Dragonlance. However, these still aren't "story-games". 

Story games are typified not just be "role-playing", but consensual role-playing and world-building where the focus is fully on creating a compelling story. This is (presumably) the end point of the continuum where the game mechanics are written with this consideration in mind.

So we end up with three (very rough) categories:

1. ROLL PLAYING: Pragmatic play using player agency and character capabilities to survive challenges and gain power. I use the name 'Roll Playing' as a convenience here, not as an insult.
2. ROLE PLAYING: As above, but incorporating story-telling elements such as alternate personalities and literary framing devices.
3. STORY GAMING: Consensual story creation, typically judged by entertainment value of the story rather than achieving goals.

D&D has very decidedly moved into Category 2, but can easily be played as Category 1 and Category 3. You can favor one over another, but you can't objectively say that one is better than another. You can't say that there's One True Way when there are literally thousands of players out there enjoying the hell out of each style.

As for the notion that the Categories are so disparate that they don't belong in the same hobby...that's nonsense. Chutes and Ladders and Arkham Horror are both boardgames, and yet wildly different. Same with RPGs. Most players might have a preferred playstyle, but are more than willing to delve into other styles as the occasion warrants.

They can all be called "games", perhaps not as a competitive endeavor but at least as amusements or past times (also a definition of game). They all create "story" in the sense that you can always relate the "story" of when your 1st level party ran into that troll. And they are all typified by taking on an individualized avatar with far more complexity than a mere game piece (ala a Chess pawn or that Monopoly car that everyone wants to be).


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 5, 2014)

howandwhy99 said:


> Gygax was making a game. One of the game designs in those games was labeled a "character" because he was accustomed to creating simulation games. No one was ever required or even expected to perform a fictional personality.



A few passages out of his DMG and-or PH about players eventually becoming "great thespians" would tend to suggest otherwise.


> "Character" and "Settings" are narrative terms usurped by Gygax to become game terms. Who knew that world would be flipped on its head and passed off as "the way it's always been"?



Er...because that *is* the way it's always been.  Remember, before Wesely-Arneson-Gygax the idea of RPGs as we know them essentially did not exist; and as they were breaking new ground I'd say they were free to use any terminology they wanted.

They chose well.

When you play a role on stage or on screen you are portraying a character in a setting.

When I play a role in a RPG I am portraying - you guessed it - a character in a setting.

Lan-"the main difference between playing a stage character and an RPG character is the presence-absence of a script"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Jun 5, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> Instead of trying to force the "story gaming" crowd into another whole genre, I believe it's better to just say that the roleplaying tent has gotten bigger.  In all cases, a role is being played.  Admittedly in story games it goes beyond just that.
> 
> I do wish we could have better language though.  I don't care for the narrative story game crowd and I wish I could quickly identify a game as not my style without having to practically interview the DM.
> 
> ...




And, really, how "beginning" do we want to get?  Weiss and Hickman were playing Dragonlance in about 1980 and they were very much into the "story game" approach.  The James Bond 007 RPG came out in 1983 and included rules for doing exactly what you are talking about - player authored game world content changes using Bond Points.  

And I doubt James Bond was the first time this was done.

So, firstly, the idea of "story games" being a Forge invention is complete ballocks.  It's not even close to true.  You can see Story Games in the 80's quite often.  

Secondly, I really don't think you've ever been able to sit down at a table without interviewing the DM.  Well, you could, but, it was pretty hit or miss whether or not you'd like the game.  That's just part of the hobby.  The fact that you're going to spend dozens, or even hundreds, of hours playing with this group of people means that you have to be pretty careful about who you sit with if you want to have a good time.  I don't think that's avoidable.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 5, 2014)

Rod Staffwand said:


> Story games are typified not just be "role-playing", but consensual role-playing and world-building where the focus is fully on creating a compelling story. This is (presumably) the end point of the continuum where the game mechanics are written with this consideration in mind.




If we're going by the original, formal definition, Story Games are games that come with a narrative arc and finishing point rather than being open ended the way most RPGs are.  It was the biggest point of contention with My Life With Master.  Entertainingly enough, oD&D didn't do this strongly - but the level caps for non-humans, and the adventurer/conqueror/king arc complete with a state change somewhere around level 10 when you get a castle or wizard's tower and stop adventuring in the same way put oD&D just about into this category.  But most other old school games didn't follow this pattern, 2e backed away from it hard, and 3e dropped it to the point I've seen this called "The lost endgame of D&D".  (In fact a lot of 3.X's problems stem from taking away the fighter's army, and giving access to the spells that in practice weren't intended to be used).

Amusing how this isn't the first time on the thread that Story-games have turned out to be more like oD&D than e.g. Vampire: The Masquerade.  (I'd argue that this is because oD&D's design process had the most robust playtesting ever, and a lot of the design of the game amounts to paving where people walked rather than trying to plan things out in advance (which is both the best way to put paths people walk on, and a design approach I've only really heard of Vincent Baker using since).  Almost all other RPGs have been planned out by people with a vision of what they are doing - and very few people have a vision where some theory hasn't already pointed.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2014)

Rod Staffwand said:


> I don't believe ANY edition of D&D gives mechanical weight to role-playing AT ALL, save for perhaps suggestion the DM take such things into account when determining results.



I wanted to say something about how, at least as I experience, 4e does give mechanical weight to roleplaying (in a tenable sense of that word that relates to the way you are using it).

The paradigm example is the paladin power "Valiant Strike", but it's not the only example. Valiant Strike is, in mechanical terms, a 1W+STR attack vs AC (and hence, at this point, the mechanical equivalent of a basic attack) with one distinguishing feature: the player gets +1 to hit per adjacent enemy.

Hence, a player whose PC has Valiant Strike as a power has a mechanical incentive to get his/her PC into the thick of things, surrounded by enemies. Which is a pretty good way to play a valiant warrior.

That's not to say the game _forces_ you to play a valiant warrior. You can ignore your mechanical incentives and play sub-optimally. But the game is not mechanically neutral on the issue: the mechanics push one way rather than another.

For me, this is the way that I want an RPG to work - when I go where the mechanics push me, I want the upshot to be the fiction that the game promised - which in the context of D&D is valiant paladins, resourceful wizards, indomitable fighters, etc. 4e delivers this, for me at least, in a way that is distinctive from earlier editions of D&D.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 5, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> As a bit of an aside, Aragorn going over the cliff in the Two Towers movie was terrible story telling and is not the sort of thing you should implement in your games on purpose.  It's also in a gaming context illustrative of the problems with the approach I outlined above.  It's bad movie making because first it was redundant.  Aragorn falling off something and being semi-conscious happens multiple times in that movie alone, each with a slow motion pan to close up, and each with no sense that the hero is really in danger (especially the second or third time it happens).




I'm deliberately missing your point, but it was actually good movie-making: TTT is a long film and Aragorn going over the cliff - or rather, the dream sequence which follows - is an obvious bladder break.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 5, 2014)

pemerton said:


> I wanted to say something about how, at least as I experience, 4e does give mechanical weight to roleplaying (in a tenable sense of that word that relates to the way you are using it).
> 
> The paradigm example is the paladin power "Valiant Strike", but it's not the only example. Valiant Strike is, in mechanical terms, a 1W+STR attack vs AC (and hence, at this point, the mechanical equivalent of a basic attack) with one distinguishing feature: the player gets +1 to hit per adjacent enemy.
> 
> ...




I'm curious as to how this is different from say smite evil and it pushing towards the fiction of a paragon of law and good that does not suffer evil to live?  Or a rogue having sneak attack which kicks in when he strikes from a hidden position... or the Wizard who is able to scribe scrolls, create potions and cast spells creating a multitude of resources for himself?  If I'm understanding why you think valiant strike is an incentive for role playing wouldn't the class abilities throughout all of D&D's history be incentives as well... or am I missing some key distinction here?


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 5, 2014)

I don't want to get into a GNS debate since everyone has different ideas of what that really means.

Permerton and Neon, the examples you give reveal to me that you hold to stereotypes about my play that are not true.  We love being our characters.  We have backstories.   There is a lot of depth and fiction to our work.  

Perhaps it is the way the story is created that matters.  In my style the group spends all their energy and effort trying to overcome the challenges in their path so that they can achieve their goal whatever that goal is.   From a player thinking perspective, success is achieving the goal efficiently.  If the DM does his job as DM though a great story will come out of that quest.   The DM will build a world that makes it hard to succeed.   It all comes down to how the players approach the game.  The player viewpoint if you will.    

One big mistake people make is they read old stories and they interpret them in the light of our modern environment.  Gygax would never have allowed PCs to create content on the fly while adventuring.   Sure anyone can propose and likely get accepted a background prior to the game starting especially if the players are already familiar with the world.  No one objects to that.   I don't think those players would as a rule choose to put the story above the groups survival either.

It is different.  I'm not going to say the Forge invented the new way.  I never said that.  I think the new way arose in home games likely not super long after D&D was invented by people who had a bent to go that way.  In time, those who where successful at running those kinds of games introduced the idea.  I do not know exactly when but I doubt it was as late as the nineties.

I played D&D all through the 80's and read many dragon magazines and I can assure you that style of play was not on most people's minds.  And that is too bad because some of them would have been happy with the new approach and would have stopped sabotaging the more traditional games with their whining and rules lawyering.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 5, 2014)

Imaro said:


> I'm curious as to how this is different from say  smite evil and it pushing towards the fiction of a paragon of law and  good that does not suffer evil to live?  Or a rogue having sneak attack  which kicks in when he strikes from a hidden position... or the Wizard  who is able to scribe scrolls, create potions and cast spells creating a  multitude of resources for himself?  If I'm understanding why you think  valiant strike is an incentive for role playing wouldn't the class  abilities throughout all of D&D's history be incentives as well...  or am I missing some key distinction here?




The abilities you list all make the characters better at things they should be doing anyway _no matter what their class_.   If they can.  So the Paladin is slightly better at bringing down evil?   Almost everyone tries to bring down evil.  The rogue simply gets _more of an advantage_  from striking from hidden - but everyone should be trying to ambush  rather than fight fair.  It doesn't change what you want to do.

Valiant strike on the other hand?  Getting surrounded would normally be a bad plan - in fact it would be the _textbook_  bad plan, but it's also something that many Paladins should want to  do.  So instead of giving them a reward for what would otherwise be good  tactics anyway, 4E boosts Paladins by making what should be bad  tactics but very thematic into tactics that they can use viably without playing as if they are trying to get themselves killed for no good purpose.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> Permerton and Neon, the examples you give reveal to me that you hold to stereotypes about my play that are not true.



That wasn't my intention. I very much believe you that you care about your characters, along the lines (I'm guessing) of the DMG quote I posted.

What I _am _saying is that I don't think the motivations behind "story gaming" are all that new. You can see hints of it in the passages from Gygax I quoted. Ron Edwards has examples of people playing Tunnels & Trolls in that style back in those same comparatively early years. I know that I worked my way towards an early version of my current approach in the mid-to-late-80s. I didn't get there by reading Dragon magazine (other than the article in 101, "For King and Country", which helped me ditch alignment) - I worked it out for myself, with a bit of support from the original Oriental Adventures.

It would be a while before systems optimised for this sort of play experience emerged. (The first I know of is Maelstrom Storytelling from the second half of the 90s, though Over the Edge from 1992 is something of a prototype.) But I think people were doing it before those systems were invented.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 5, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> The abilities you list all make the characters better at things they should be doing anyway _no matter what their class_.   If they can.  So the Paladin is slightly better at bringing down evil?   Almost everyone tries to bring down evil.  The rogue simply gets _more of an advantage_  from striking from hidden - but everyone should be trying to ambush  rather than fight fair.  It doesn't change what you want to do.
> 
> Valiant strike on the other hand?  Getting surrounded would normally be a bad plan - in fact it would be the _textbook_  bad plan, but it's also something that many Paladins should want to  do.  So instead of giving them a reward for what would otherwise be good  tactics anyway, 4E boosts Paladins by making what should be bad  tactics but very thematic into tactics that they can use viably without playing as if they are trying to get themselves killed for no good purpose.




I've said exactly this about the 4e approach to the game.  It design mechanics that encouraged you to do something that is otherwise stupid.  I found that sort of game not to my liking for that reason (and others of course).  But I think we agree on the basic point that the game did that.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 5, 2014)

pemerton said:


> That wasn't my intention. I very much believe you that you care about your characters, along the lines (I'm guessing) of the DMG quote I posted.
> 
> What I _am _saying is that I don't think the motivations behind "story gaming" are all that new. You can see hints of it in the passages from Gygax I quoted. Ron Edwards has examples of people playing Tunnels & Trolls in that style back in those same comparatively early years. I know that I worked my way towards an early version of my current approach in the mid-to-late-80s. I didn't get there by reading Dragon magazine (other than the article in 101, "For King and Country", which helped me ditch alignment) - I worked it out for myself, with a bit of support from the original Oriental Adventures.
> 
> It would be a while before systems optimised for this sort of play experience emerged. (The first I know of is Maelstrom Storytelling from the second half of the 90s, though Over the Edge from 1992 is something of a prototype.) But I think people were doing it before those systems were invented.




I think we are agreeing.  I don't know when the first human being played in that style.  I am certain it was a good bit before systems began to accommodate that style.  I think we can agree that the common man on the street wasn't hearing about it unless he happened to know someone leading that charge.  It wasn't the mainstream playing style is my point.   

Any popular game is bound to be taken in lots of different directions.  The Monte Haul style game was actually the battleground in the late 70s and 80s.  Gygax actually railed against it in the 1e DMG.  So I don't doubt that if roleplaying stays popular many more approaches will arise some of which I may like and some I won't.  I'm not locked into the past but I am very much a fan of a particular viewpoint approach to gaming.   I prefer actor stance and character limited knowledge as much as possible.


----------



## Rod Staffwand (Jun 5, 2014)

All of this is to say that the DM can depart from standard resolution for a variety of reasons:

1. Because the rules don't apply or apply imperfectly to the situation at hand.
2. As a practical matter (i.e. speeding through a combat because there's only 5 minutes left in the game session).
3. To make for a better "story".
4. To persecute, punish or even favor a player or the entire party.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 5, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> The abilities you list all make the characters better at things they should be doing anyway _no matter what their class_.   If they can.  So the Paladin is slightly better at bringing down evil?   Almost everyone tries to bring down evil.  The rogue simply gets _more of an advantage_  from striking from hidden - but everyone should be trying to ambush  rather than fight fair.  It doesn't change what you want to do.
> 
> Valiant strike on the other hand?  Getting surrounded would normally be a bad plan - in fact it would be the _textbook_  bad plan, but it's also something that many Paladins should want to  do.  So instead of giving them a reward for what would otherwise be good  tactics anyway, 4E boosts Paladins by making what should be bad  tactics but very thematic into tactics that they can use viably without playing as if they are trying to get themselves killed for no good purpose.




Yes but the point was about abilities that reinforce roleplaying... Now whether a paladin archetype should rush in to a group and fight as opposed to say... challenging and smiting the biggest, baddest evil doer in one-on-one combat on the field is more about how one views a paladin than whether either particular ability gives more of an incentive to roleplay or not.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 5, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> So instead of giving them a reward for what would otherwise be good  tactics anyway, 4E boosts Paladins by making what should be bad  tactics but very thematic into tactics that they can use viably without playing as if they are trying to get themselves killed for no good purpose.




We have incorporated an XP reward system for thematic play in our 5e game. Funny enough we had same reward system in place for our 4e games, but of course utilising your powers did not earn you that reward since that (using your powers) was considered the standard. 
So basically we incentivise thematic play via XP and achieve the same result - a pretty good house rule IMO.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 5, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> Permerton and Neon, the examples you give reveal  to me that you hold to stereotypes about my play that are not true.  We  love being our characters.  We have backstories.   There is a lot of  depth and fiction to our work.




I don't think I've _ever_  doubted that.  I've read too much MERP, too much Rolemaster (although  that's more [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s game), too much GURPS, and have just bought  Pendragon (as it's the current Bundle of Holding).  And I'm well aware of Chivalry and Sorcery  and Harn.  In fact I'll say flat out that one of the best things about  80s gaming was the depth, attention, and love put into the settings and  fiction.  Much more so, in my opinion, than 90s metaplotty stuff - and  that's one of the reasons I was buying GURPS rather than WoD in the  90s.  

In fact I'll go so far as to say say that the 80s was the  high point of RPG research and setting creation and no one is doing it  remotely that well now (except arguably the people who've continued to  build Harn).

On the other hand on this thread I've been dealing  with Howandwhy99 who takes a very different approach.  Things I say  about Howandwhy99's very fringe playstyle are not intended to apply to  everyone.



> Perhaps it is the way the story is created that matters.  In my  style the group spends all their energy and effort trying to overcome  the challenges in their path so that they can achieve their goal  whatever that goal is.   From a player thinking perspective, success is  achieving the goal efficiently.  If the DM does his job as DM though a  great story will come out of that quest.




And I like that sort of story.  But it is _far_ from the only sort of story I like.  And, with all due respect, it takes _an absolute age_ to play.  By the time we've finished a _Fiasco_  we'd still be on the first level of Caverns of Thracia - and that's if  we've entered the caverns at all.  (A fast game of Fiasco can be played  in an hour including setup).  It takes you what?  Four to six sessions  to reach level 2?  In that time my Grey Ranks character will have had  all the triumph and heartbreak of a child soldier in the Warsaw  Occupation, seeing what they love turn to ash and either surviving or  dying.  And I can throw in a game of Montsegur as well.  In  Monsterhearts we can have told a complete coming of age story, with  people growing and developing massively, learning to cope with the world  in a not screwed up way.  Or descending into a whole pile of screwup  and possibly burning down the school and ruining their life and others.



> The  DM will build a world that makes it hard to succeed.   It all comes  down to how the players approach the game.  The player viewpoint if you  will.




And to the nature of the challenges the rules  and DM produce.  D&D's mechanics basically support an "ascending  sawtooth" story ("Can I?  Can I?  I don't think I can?  I might be able  to?  Yay!!!/[Death]", repeat with a slightly bigger threat) or  chicken/addiction arcs ("Just a bit further for a bit more treasure...")  with the next iteration being almost the same but slightly louder.  You  can do more with it, of course, but the rules don't actively help you  and can get in the way (try a locked room mystery with the cleric able  to _Speak with Dead_ and the wizard loaded down on divination spells?)

If we look at the seven basic plots,  D&D is fundamentally about "The Quest" or "Overcoming the  monster".  Neither of those plots are bad things.  But Fiasco is  targetted on "Tragedy", and can delve into "Comedy" and "Voyage and  Return" (and occasionally "Rebirth").  Monsterhearts strongly supports  all five D&D doesn't.

It's just possible that the game of  Monsterhearts I'm currently running with seven PCs has all five of those  running together plus Overcoming the Monster (with the Monster being  one of the PCs), with each PC as the focus for their own story.  That's  tangled, interwoven storytelling of a sort I've never seen in D&D -  especially not after a couple of sessions.



> One big mistake people make is they read old stories and they  interpret them in the light of our modern environment.  Gygax would  never have allowed PCs to create content on the fly while  adventuring.




This, as I've pointed out, just isn't true  and I have already provided a counter-example.  He allowed the Balrog to  invent The Balrog Times as a plausible lie, and the idea they used  flash photography.  Because it was fun. 

Claiming Gygax would never have done something that someone who was there says he actually _did_  doesn't help your cause at all.  And Arneson did not ask Major Wellesly  if he could take a CIA badge with him into Braunstein.  He just did it.



> It  is different.  I'm not going to say the Forge invented the new way.  I  never said that.  I think the new way arose in home games likely not  super long after D&D was invented by people who had a bent to go  that way.




A new way _did_ arise in home games not  super long after D&D was invented.  The new way was that you must  stick to the pre-established rules and background rather than "we made  up some  we thought would be fun".  And this new way came to  dominate the hobby.  Because it's what the books said to do.



> In  time, those who where successful at running those kinds of games  introduced the idea.  I do not know exactly when but I doubt it was as  late as the nineties.




The idea was introduced in  Braunstein.  The game that inspired D&D.  By Arneson before Gygax  even started to get involved with D&D.  



> I played D&D all through the 80's and read many dragon  magazines and I can assure you that style of play was not on most  people's minds.




Indeed it wasn't on most  peoples' minds.  It happened in Lake Geneva - but the game Gygax played  was not the game he published.  And people who followed the _published_  game (especially AD&D) were given dense books full of tables and  rules saying the way things must be.  And most people who wanted to make  their own stuff up either stuck to oD&D, B/X, BECMI. or the Rules  Cyclopaedia.



> And that is too bad because some of them  would have been happy with the new approach and would have stopped  sabotaging the more traditional games with their whining and rules  lawyering.




Rules lawyering is a consequence of detail heavy games that people  haven't been careful when writing.  (AD&D is very bad for this, so  is the World of Darkness).

As for the rest, had D&D made more explicit its roots in the _Freeform LARP_ (even if that term hadn't been invented) that was Braunstein it would have made more people happy, yes.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 5, 2014)

Gary Gygax's D&D games didn't prioritize simulationist or narrativist consistency, but equally they were far from abstract exercises in tactics or rules manipulation. They don't match very well any modern classification I'm aware of. Gary turned against the _term_ 'story' in his later discussion, I think because for him it meant a narrative decided in advance or told in retrospect -- but he certainly saw D&D in large part in terms of fictional characters doing fictional things.

And Ed Greenwood's campaigns were 'roleplaying-over-rules', based on intertwining intrigues and plots (characters', not DM's), from their beginning in 1978, and started to influence the wider culture the next year, when his _Dragon_ articles started, one of which was on how 'Player's don't need to know all the rules'.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 5, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> The Monte Haul style game was actually the  battleground in the late 70s and 80s.  Gygax actually railed against it  in the 1e DMG.




Yup.  The trouble with Monte Haul,  however, is not something you'd see now because the idea of taking your  character from group to group has vanished.  If you take your same  character across, and Rary is giving out ten times the treasure of  Bigby, Rigby, or Sigby, people in Rary's game have an unfair advantage.   That was the problem with Monte Haul 



> I'm not locked  into the past but I am very much a fan of a particular viewpoint  approach to gaming.   I prefer actor stance and character limited  knowledge as much as possible.




Generally, so am I   One reason I'm a fan of most games Powered By  The Apocalypse (Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts, and my own homebrews  in particular, Dungeon World not so much because it breaks this  guideline).



Imaro said:


> Yes but the point was about abilities that  reinforce roleplaying... Now whether a paladin archetype should rush in  to a group and fight as opposed to say... challenging and smiting the  biggest, baddest evil doer in one-on-one combat on the field is more  about how one views a paladin than whether either particular ability  gives more of an incentive to roleplay or not.




You really expect the person on the other side to _accept_  the one on one duel?  Your mark enables you to challenge them  effectively to one on one combat so they have a problem attacking anyone  else, and Valiant Strike gives you bonusses when they prefer to fight  you many on one and have you dogpiled.

But if you don't like the way Valiant Strike encourages you to behave _don't take it_.   If your personal picture of a Paladin differs there are about a dozen  other at will powers you could take in its place, all of which in  different ways reflect how Paladins behave.



Sadras said:


> We have incorporated an XP reward system for  thematic play in our 5e game. Funny enough we had same reward system in  place for our 4e games, but of course utilising your powers did not earn  you that reward since that was considered the standard.
> So basically we incentivise thematic play via XP and achieve the same result - a pretty good house rule IMO.




That works well - XP for thematic play especially when it hurts the character.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 5, 2014)

Faraer said:


> Gary Gygax's D&D games didn't prioritize  simulationist or narrativist consistency, but equally they were far from  abstract exercises in tactics or rules manipulation. They don't match  very well any modern classification I'm aware of. Gary turned against  the _term_ 'story' in his later discussion, I think because for  him it meant a narrative decided in advance or told in retrospect -- but  he certainly saw D&D in large part in terms of fictional characters  doing fictional things.




That's my understanding as well    And I agree with Gygax that pre-plotted stories aren't as much fun  as organic ones (and spare me from the Storyteller system and the GM  advice those games gave for making the story unfold).  The point of  Storygames is that the rules lead naturally to emergent stories of the  type intended.  So My Life With Master leads to Gothic Horror and  Monsterhearts to Teen Horror/Drama without having to put any direct GM  constraints on the actions at all to force them into the desired mould.   Some are actor stance, some are author stance - but following the rules  of the game leads to the playstyle and the type of story intended.



> And Ed Greenwood's campaigns were 'roleplaying-over-rules', based  on intertwining intrigues and plots (characters', not DM's), from their  beginning in 1978, and started to influence the wider culture the next  year, when his _Dragon_ articles started, one of which was on how 'Player's don't need to know all the rules'.




I believe Gygax didn't even let the players see the rules at all for a long time


----------



## Imaro (Jun 5, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> You really expect the person on the other side to _accept_  the one on one duel?  Your mark enables you to challenge them  effectively to one on one combat so they have a problem attacking anyone  else, and Valiant Strike gives you bonusses when they prefer to fight  you many on one and have you dogpiled.




I guess it would depend on the situation and who he is challenging... pride and hubris has been the downfall of many an evil villain in fiction...  As to the paladin mark in 4e, IME it tends to "guarantee" very little since it's a pretty weak mark...



Neonchameleon said:


> But if you don't like the way Valiant Strike encourages you to behave _don't take it_.   If your personal picture of a Paladin differs there are about a dozen  other at will powers you could take in its place, all of which in  different ways reflect how Paladins behave.




It's not about whether I "like" it or not, that's not what was being discussed... it was about abilities that give incentive to role play because they reward you for acting in archetype.  I was making the assertion that most editions of D&D have class abilities that give an incentive for certain behaviors...


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 5, 2014)

Imaro said:


> I guess it would depend on the situation and who he is challenging... pride and hubris has been the downfall of many an evil villain in fiction...




Indeed.  But Paladins should be able to cope with the villains who _don't_ decide to duel them.  Which is what Valiant Strike does.  They have more than one at will to use - so can pick a duelist's one for the other.



> As to the paladin mark in 4e, IME it tends to "guarantee" very little since it's a pretty weak mark...




Agreed.



> I was making the assertion that most editions of D&D have class abilities that give an incentive for certain behaviors...




And all the ones you listed reward you for doing things everyone should do anyway, irrespective of class.  Which doesn't actually need rewarding. Not for doing things you normally _shouldn't_ unless you're the sort of person who focusses on them.  You'd have been closer if you'd listed Whirlwind Attack - but that's an ability to do something no one else can (at the cost of five feats!) rather than something everyone can but others shouldn't.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 5, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> And all the ones you listed reward you for doing things everyone should do anyway, irrespective of class.  Which doesn't actually need rewarding. Not for doing things you normally _shouldn't_ unless you're the sort of person who focusses on them.  You'd have been closer if you'd listed Whirlwind Attack - but that's an ability to do something no one else can (at the cost of five feats!) rather than something everyone can but others shouldn't.




I disagree... should a wizard be "smiting" evil in direct hand-to-hand combat?  Should a rogue?  Should a paladin or fighter be trying  to hide with the rogue to get a sneak attack in?  No what I see is it giving incentive for behaviors that fit particular archetypes for the classes that correspond to said archetype...


----------



## Hussar (Jun 6, 2014)

Emerikol said:
			
		

> I played D&D all through the 80's and read many dragon magazines and I can assure you that style of play was not on most people's minds. And that is too bad because some of them would have been happy with the new approach and would have stopped sabotaging the more traditional games with their whining and rules lawyering.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Mastering-as-a-Fine-Art/page24#ixzz33oKbxaBS




Sigh, you were doing so well up to this point.  I was nodding along with your points and then you drop this.  Sorry, but "sabotaging" with "whining and rules lawyering"?  Please.  That criticism can be levelled at any group of gamers you care to point to.  How can it be rules lawyering when there are no rules for what you want to do?  But, in any case, it would be extremely helpful to avoid these kinds of comments when talking about a play style you don't enjoy.  it simply puts people on the defensive.



Emerikol said:


> I think we are agreeing.  I don't know when the first human being played in that style.  I am certain it was a good bit before systems began to accommodate that style.  I think we can agree that the common man on the street wasn't hearing about it unless he happened to know someone leading that charge.  It wasn't the mainstream playing style is my point.
> 
> Any popular game is bound to be taken in lots of different directions.  The Monte Haul style game was actually the battleground in the late 70s and 80s.  Gygax actually railed against it in the 1e DMG.  So I don't doubt that if roleplaying stays popular many more approaches will arise some of which I may like and some I won't.  I'm not locked into the past but I am very much a fan of a particular viewpoint approach to gaming.   I prefer actor stance and character limited knowledge as much as possible.




How is Dragonlance not mainstream?  One of the best selling module series of all time, wasn't mainstream enough for you?  Because you certainly see all sorts of "story game" elements in those modules.  IIRC, the Conan series of modules had a number of elements as well to push story forward.

Never minding, of course, an entire edition (2e) which tried to push all sorts of story game style elements into the game.

How mainstream does it have to be before it gets accepted?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 6, 2014)

Imaro said:


> Yes but the point was about abilities that reinforce roleplaying... Now whether a paladin archetype should rush in to a group and fight as opposed to say... challenging and smiting the biggest, baddest evil doer in one-on-one combat on the field is more about how one views a paladin than whether either particular ability gives more of an incentive to roleplay or not.




But, let's not forget here, we are going to have more than one power.  Valiant strike encourages one behaviour.  A different power encourages another (or possibly reinforces the first) and the player can decide what he wants to encourage based on his vision for the character.  A challenging paladin is certainly a possibility as well.  Or a paladin that can do both.



Imaro said:


> I disagree... should a wizard be "smiting" evil in direct hand-to-hand combat?  Should a rogue?  Should a paladin or fighter be trying  to hide with the rogue to get a sneak attack in?  No what I see is it giving incentive for behaviors that fit particular archetypes for the classes that correspond to said archetype...




No, well, not often anyway.  But, the end strategy is largely the same - deal damage to the enemy.  Wizards generally aren't going to do it in hand to hand combat, but, they are very likely to hide just like a rogue (invisibility, standing in the background, sniping) and firing away.  A rogue and a wizard can look very, very similar sometimes.  The paladin and fighter aren't hiding to get in that sneak attack, but, in say 1e, they are hiding to get in that surprise round, where you can get up to 3 full rounds worth of actions before the enemy takes a single action.

Even in 3e, having that surprise round can be devastating.  Surprise charge followed by winning initiative and a full round of attacks can do a heck of a lot of damage.  So, why wouldn't a fighter or a paladin hide with the rogue if they can?  

Standing up front and challenging the enemy leader isn't actually supported by the mechanics in any way that I can think of in 3e.  I remember in 2e actually trying to do it at some tables because, like you, I thought that's what a paladin should be doing.  After my third paladin died when all the mooks rushed up and ganked him because the different DM's thought my idea was tactically suicidal, I stopped doing that.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 6, 2014)

Hussar said:


> How is Dragonlance not mainstream?  One of the best selling module series of all time, wasn't mainstream enough for you?  Because you certainly see all sorts of "story game" elements in those modules.



Dragonlance represented more of a split in the mainstream, or (depending on how you look at it) the beginning of a major diversion of its course...


> Never minding, of course, an entire edition (2e) which tried to push all sorts of story game style elements into the game.



...to this.

Not to everybody's tastes, but it's out there notwithstanding and always will be.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Jun 6, 2014)

Which is my point. It's pretty hard to call 2e a "minor niche" in the hobby. I don't care if someone likes itor not. But trying to exclude it from the hobby is a bad idea.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 6, 2014)

Imaro said:


> I disagree... should a wizard be "smiting" evil in  direct hand-to-hand combat?  Should a rogue?  Should a paladin or  fighter be trying  to hide with the rogue to get a sneak attack in?  No  what I see is it giving incentive for behaviors that fit particular  archetypes for the classes that correspond to said archetype...




Yes fighters damn well _should_  be trying to hide to win surprise rounds, and to get flanking  bonusses.  Surprise rounds kill and flanking is a boost to hit.  And the  only argument that Paladins shouldn't is the Paladin's code of conduct  or RP.  Sometimes class features prohibit what would normally be good tactics.

Wizards  and Smite are the single exception here.  And that's down to the class  features of the wizard that make what would normally be a good tactic  (everyone in melee beating the enemy down, either getting or preventing  the overlap) into a bad one.  Wizards are quite literally the exception  that proves the rule - wizards wouldn't benefit from Smite because of  the wizard class features that cut off lines of tactics that almost  every other class uses.  (Seriously, other than Wizards and Sorcerers  every other PHB class goes into melee - which means every single class  from Monk to Ranger, from Cleric to Rogue other than the Wizard or  Sorcerer can make good use of Smite without changing their tactics).   Literally the only classes that would be encouraged to make otherwise  bad moves by giving them Smite would be Wizards and Sorcerers.



Lanefan said:


> Dragonlance represented more of a split in the  mainstream, or (depending on how you look at it) the beginning of a  major diversion of its course...
> ...to this.
> 
> Not to everybody's tastes, but it's out there notwithstanding and always will be.




Dragonlance was _huge_.  But I disagree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] that it  has mechanics that are meaningfully described as Story Game - Storygames  are a reaction against the sort of mechanics in Dragonlance (and the  truly terrible GM advice in the WoD) that had old school roleplayers  grinding their teeth (see, for example, the "Obscure Death Rule" or  railroading in general).


----------



## Imaro (Jun 6, 2014)

Hussar said:


> But, let's not forget here, we are going to have more than one power.  Valiant strike encourages one behaviour.  A different power encourages another (or possibly reinforces the first) and the player can decide what he wants to encourage based on his vision for the character.  A challenging paladin is certainly a possibility as well.  Or a paladin that can do both.




What exact;ly does this have to do with the original point?  Either class abilities do or don't encourage certain behavior... and thus give incentive to "roleplay"... the number or amount is irrelevant to my point.





Hussar said:


> No, well, not often anyway.  But, the end strategy is largely the same - deal damage to the enemy.  Wizards generally aren't going to do it in hand to hand combat, but, they are very likely to hide just like a rogue (invisibility, standing in the background, sniping) and firing away.  A rogue and a wizard can look very, very similar sometimes.  The paladin and fighter aren't hiding to get in that sneak attack, but, in say 1e, they are hiding to get in that surprise round, where you can get up to 3 full rounds worth of actions before the enemy takes a single action.




Yes and a Ranger and Rogue in 4e can look very similar when using similar tactics... Again how does this address my original point? 




Hussar said:


> Standing up front and challenging the enemy leader isn't actually supported by the mechanics in any way that I can think of in 3e.  I remember in 2e actually trying to do it at some tables because, like you, I thought that's what a paladin should be doing.  After my third paladin died when all the mooks rushed up and ganked him because the different DM's thought my idea was tactically suicidal, I stopped doing that.




So heavy armor, stealth and hide as a non-class skill, smite ability, high hit points, etc. don't give incentive to face the big evil head up as opposed to say spending an action to try and sneak up on him and most likely failing miserably or attacking from range with a low Dex??  As to the tactics of your DM the same thing can be done in any system where the DM actively wants to counter the archetypal behavior of a class as opposed to working with it. Also where were was the rest of your party... if you were going head up with the BBEG what was everyone else doing?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 6, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> Yes fighters damn well _should_  be trying to hide to win surprise rounds, and to get flanking  bonusses.  Surprise rounds kill and flanking is a boost to hit.  And the  only argument that Paladins shouldn't is the Paladin's code of conduct  or RP.  Sometimes class features prohibit what would normally be good tactics.




Unless of course their abyssmally low hide and move silently scores negate that (possibly even ruining the rogue's chance to get surprise as well) and thus push them towards the straight up fighter that they are as opposed to a sneaky rogue...  it's not about what they can try to do (you can try to do anything you want in an rpg), it's about what their class abilities give an incentive to do... that's what were discussing.



Neonchameleon said:


> Wizards  and Smite are the single exception here.  And that's down to the class  features of the wizard that make what would normally be a good tactic  (everyone in melee beating the enemy down, either getting or preventing  the overlap) into a bad one.  Wizards are quite literally the exception  that proves the rule - wizards wouldn't benefit from Smite because of  the wizard class features that cut off lines of tactics that almost  every other class uses.  (Seriously, other than Wizards and Sorcerers  every other PHB class goes into melee - which means every single class  from Monk to Ranger, from Cleric to Rogue other than the Wizard or  Sorcerer can make good use of Smite without changing their tactics).   Literally the only classes that would be encouraged to make otherwise  bad moves by giving them Smite would be Wizards and Sorcerers.




So should a rogue be running up into straight up melee combat trading blows or should he be striking from distance and looking for chances to sneak attack?  I'll tell you which rogue is going to survive longer and make better use of his abilities in any edition (possibly outside of 4e) and it's not the run up and hack (smite) rogue...  Like I said every class in every edition has abilities that give an incentive (not force) to play said class in certain ways.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 6, 2014)

Imaro said:


> So heavy armor, stealth and hide as a non-class skill, smite ability, high hit points, etc. don't give incentive to face the big evil head up as opposed to say spending an action to try and sneak up on him and most likely failing miserably or attacking from range with a low Dex??




No they don't.  The only incentives around here are anti-incentives.  "You are either in theory or in practice not allowed to do this so don't do it." If the fighter can get the ambush they should, and rogues should _very_ seldom waste actions for Sneak Attack.



Imaro said:


> Unless of course their abyssmally low hide and move silently scores negate that




In short the only reason they shouldn't is because the class tells them they can't.  It's sound tactics.  And if they can whittle the enemy down at range safely the fighter should do so.

This is a very different situation from "We know this is bad tactics but it is in character so we are going to make sure that it works better."


----------



## Imaro (Jun 6, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> No they don't.  The only incentives around here are anti-incentives.  "You are either in theory or in practice not allowed to do this so don't do it." If the fighter can get the ambush they should, and rogues should _very_ seldom waste actions for Sneak Attack.




So now were down to nit-picking "how" different editions give an incentive for different classes to behave differently in play, which has nothing to do with my earlier point.  In fact I'm not even understanding why you keep going down this line of argument since I haven't addressed it whatsoever in my previous posts... 

Just answer this, does a rogue in pre-4e D&D play optimally by taking and doing the exact same actions as a fighter or a cleric or a paladin?  If not then the classes have incentives to act "roleplay" in different ways.

Whetehr you like how those incentives are implemented or the end result is irrelevant to my point.




Neonchameleon said:


> In short the only reason they shouldn't is because the class tells them they can't.  It's sound tactics.  And if they can whittle the enemy down at range safely the fighter should do so.
> 
> This is a very different situation from "We know this is bad tactics but it is in character so we are going to make sure that it works better."




FIrst, as I stated earlier you can do whatever you want in a roleplaying game... now whether your are more or less likely to be successful is based upon the makeup of your character...

Who cares whether you are given an incentive for bad tactics or not... I never argued that one way or the other...  again now we're nit-picking how a particular result is achieved as opposed to whether it happens or not... and that's not my point, so I'm not sure what exactly (as far as my point goes) your arguments are addressing.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 6, 2014)

Imaro said:


> Just answer this, does a rogue in pre-4e D&D play optimally by taking and doing the exact same actions as a fighter or a cleric or a paladin?  If not then the classes have incentives to act "roleplay" in different ways.




No.  A fighter behaves optimally by taking as close to the same actions as a rogue as they can.  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has already mentioned what happens in AD&D if a Paladin tries behaving like ... a Paladin.



> I never argued that one way or the other...  again now we're nit-picking how a particular result is achieved as opposed to whether it happens or not... and that's not my point, so I'm not sure what exactly (as far as my point goes) your arguments are addressing.




This is not nitpicking.  This is the whole point.  Optimal play for fighters is hide and shank, catching the enemy flat footed and slaughtering them (SOP for the original game was to do this to dragons - or not fight them at all).

That you fail to accept the point doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It means that it's not one you see as important.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 6, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> No.  A fighter behaves optimally by taking as close to the same actions as a rogue as they can.  @_*Hussar*_ has already mentioned what happens in AD&D if a Paladin tries behaving like ... a Paladin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Let's just agree to disagree... @_*Hussar*_'s anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything about the paladin and I'm sorry but in my time playing I've seen little to no fighters whose primary activities in combat across a campaign was to continuously hide and strike from the shadows... That you choose to accept the anecdotal evidence of one poster as fact and your own play experiences as universal doesn't make it so...


----------



## Hussar (Jun 7, 2014)

Imaro said:


> Let's just agree to disagree... @_*Hussar*_'s anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything about the paladin and I'm sorry but in my time playing I've seen little to no fighters whose primary activities in combat across a campaign was to continuously hide and strike from the shadows... That you choose to accept the anecdotal evidence of one poster as fact and your own play experiences as universal doesn't make it so...




Well, of course you haven't seen it.  The mechanics in 3e are virtually guaranteed that this tactic will fail.  But, then again, just because your players aren't particularly interested in tactics doesn't make it a poor tactical choice.

Now, going back to AD&D, this tactic was a great one, because now fighters don't auto fail trying to hide or sneak.

Then again, it's not that hard to get a 3e fighter to be sneaky either.  Elven cloak and Boots fix that problem and isn't terribly expensive.



> Just answer this, does a rogue in pre-4e D&D play optimally by taking and doing the exact same actions as a fighter or a cleric or a paladin? If not then the classes have incentives to act "roleplay" in different ways.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Mastering-as-a-Fine-Art/page27#ixzz33w9iJ2pP




Funny how you conspicuously leave off one class comparison there.  Because I've been told multiple times that the way for a rogue to be successful is to start casting spells - seems a lot like being a wizard to me.  And a rogue that hangs back and shoots arrows is about as effective as a commoner.  No sneak attack at range.  You have to act like a fighter or you don't do anything in combat.  A rogue that never gets into melee is basically a torch carrier.


----------



## Rod Staffwand (Jun 7, 2014)

It doesn't matter what the optimal strategy for any given class and their skill set is. Personality is not the same as tactical acumen. It's also not the same as a code of conduct, alignment or assembly of character build features.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 7, 2014)

Rod Staffwand said:


> It doesn't matter what the optimal strategy for any given class and their skill set is. Personality is not the same as tactical acumen. It's also not the same as a code of conduct, alignment or assembly of character build features.




Personality isn't the same thing as tactical acumen.  But doing things that _do not work_ over again in life or death situations and expecting the results to mysteriously change is .. a Darwin Award waiting to happen.  Now I've a soft spot for Paladins in the mold of the Man of La Mancha - but a big part of their personality is that they know what they are doing and _just don't care_.  They are going to do it anyway to try to light the way.  This is an overwhelming personality trait.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 7, 2014)

Imaro said:


> Let's just agree to disagree... @_*Hussar*_'s anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything about the paladin and I'm sorry but in my time playing I've seen little to no fighters whose primary activities in combat across a campaign was to continuously hide and strike from the shadows... That you choose to accept the anecdotal evidence of one poster as fact and your own play experiences as universal doesn't make it so...




There is not, I believe, any edition of D&D other than 4e where to "continuously hide and strike from the shadows" is optimal tactics for the rogue with the exception of a rogue who has invested their first two feats to get Precise Shot and who doesn't have iterative attacks yet.  And you were talking about optimal tactics earlier rather than something they do.  Starting fights from ambush is good tactics for the fighter.  And giving up your attacks to hide means the enemy stays alive longer and hurts your mates a lot more.  It flattens your DPR in 3.X due to the full attack rules (and is impossible in 2e) - while at low levels it's still bad tactics at range because you need precise shot, and in melee because of opportunity attacks.  (Not to say there aren't times where it works, but it's rare rather than continual).  The only game where it's actually optimal tactics much of the time (the initial question) is ... 4e.  Which doesn't have Full Round Attacks or need the Precise Shot feat.


----------

