Where is the enjoyment for the DM?

533 posts / 0 new
Last post
No one knew about it until I looked at the map and thought about it the difference in elevation potentially making one of its rare differences in the encounter. This is very different from someone wielding a sword he was described as having, and is much closer to me simply declaring that there was a climable ledge there because it made sense that there be.

Even if we were to call this a legitimage screw up by the players, where's the benefit in the DM playing gotcha? Some would say it's to "teach" them to become "better" players, despite that not being the DM's role and despite that not making them "better," just more paranoid and less confident. Where's the enjoyment for the DM in that?



I love the notion that someone becoming "better" at something is objectively bad. Hilarious how much vitriol it ellicits.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Totally, It's your story. They are just there to watch your greatness and totally awesome author skills right?



This is such a blatant mis-read and/or outright strawman that it is laughably ridiculous. Like 3 Stooges-level sophistication.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

No one knew about it until I looked at the map and thought about it the difference in elevation potentially making one of its rare differences in the encounter. This is very different from someone wielding a sword he was described as having, and is much closer to me simply declaring that there was a climable ledge there because it made sense that there be.

Even if we were to call this a legitimage screw up by the players, where's the benefit in the DM playing gotcha? Some would say it's to "teach" them to become "better" players, despite that not being the DM's role and despite that not making them "better," just more paranoid and less confident. Where's the enjoyment for the DM in that?



I love the notion that someone becoming "better" at something is objectively bad. Hilarious how much vitriol it ellicits.

The notion itself of "better" in a ooperative RPG is objectively bad. Just like your flawed football analogies, it says a lot about how you approach the game.
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)

The notion itself of "better" in a ooperative RPG is objectively bad. Just like your flawed football analogies, it says a lot about how you approach the game.



Yeah huh.

Look, Corran, I get that you don't get game design discussion...I seriously understand that...

...but to think that the idea of becoming "better" at something a person chooses to spend HOURS doing is somehow objectively bad...honestly, that tells me more about you personally than anything about your games.

If a hobby isn't worth getting better at it's not worth playing.

Hell, the very concept that you would be posting on a DM advice forum basically negates the premise of your own statement...that is, unless you start replying to threads seeking help with an answer of "Why bother getting an answer? If you're looking to improve you're objectively bad".

LMAO Hell it's pretty much sig-worthy to quote you on -"better in a cooperative RPG is objectively bad". Honest to God that is meme-worthy right there.

EDIT: I'll also add that I have all the confidence in the world stating that how I approach the game, how I play and how I DM are all objectively better than whatever you're doing if only for the simple fact that I (and my players) try to be better every time we sit down at the table. I have no shame in saying that. I say it proudly.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.


The notion itself of "better" in a ooperative RPG is objectively bad. Just like your flawed football analogies, it says a lot about how you approach the game.



Yeah huh.

Look, Corran, I get that you don't get game design discussion...I seriously understand that...

...but to think that the idea of becoming "better" at something a person chooses to spend HOURS doing is somehow objectively bad...honestly, that tells me more about you personally than anything about your games.

If a hobby isn't worth getting better at it's not worth playing.

Hell, the very concept that you would be posting on a DM advice forum basically negates the premise of your own statement...that is, unless you start replying to threads seeking help with an answer of "Why bother getting an answer? If you're looking to improve you're objectively bad".

LMAO Hell it's pretty much sig-worthy to quote you on -"better in a cooperative RPG is objectively bad". Honest to God that is meme-worthy right there.

EDIT: I'll also add that I have all the confidence in the world stating that how I approach the game, how I play and how I DM are all objectively better than whatever you're doing if only for the simple fact that I (and my players) try to be better every time we sit down at the table. I have no shame in saying that. I say it proudly.



Totally. Corran, I have all the confidence in the world that my opinion on how to play D&D is superior and if I have to teach a lesson to help my players get better at what is very obviously a game and not a bunch of people trying to have fun at a table. It is almost heretical to not punish them. 

Yagami nailed this one. We need to teach the players how to play so they can have fun the right way. Especially if we're better than whatever you're doing.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)

Totally. Corran, I have all the confidence in the world that my opinion on how to play D&D is superior and if I have to teach a lesson to help my players get better at what is very obviously a game and not a bunch of people trying to have fun at a table. It is almost heretical to not punish them. 

Yagami nailed this one. We need to teach the players how to play so they can have fun the right way. Especially if we're better than whatever you're doing.




"a game" / "a bunch of people trying to have fun at a table"

The fact that you would seperate these two items as if they're not (or can't be) the same thing is why you fail.

You also fail because you assume that I want my players to get better...or that I somehow teach them lessons. No such thing occurs. It is the nature of the game to present difficulties to the players that they then overcome (or fail to) with varying levels of success. That some people would try and strip this away is not only a disservice to their players but to gaming in general.

You see, MY PLAYERS are the ones that want themselves to do better. Not I. They want to thrive. They want to meet/greet/kill/steal/circumvent that which they come into contact with and they want to do well while doing so. They want their avatar to improve and grow in more than just XP and BAB...and while they are sitting at the table they realize that a big part of that is being smart and solving problems smartly.

Y'know...just like life.

I do not punish my players. Now, bad things may happen in the course of the game, but I am a fair & impartial referee. I do not want to see my players characters die though I recognize this is possible. I am, essentially, a home-field ref...and while I may root for my home team I do not cheat on their behalf because I have faith in their ability & desire do play.

Let me enlighten you (and several others as well)...when you pre-determine the outcome of something, or when you fudge for someone, or when you just plain ignore things to make sure you get an outcome you feel is desirable, what you are doing is cheating your players of doing meaningful things. You let them win the superbowl because you called a first down that was 9 yards instead of 10. Then, conspiratorially, you give them a wink & a nudge letting them know that you're on "their side"...when really you are acting against them. You are demeaning their efforts. You are insulting them. Sadly, many people see this as "helping"...but you're not. You're robbing. Many players do not even recognize it because they've never experienced it any other way...they've merely had two extremes...being summarily punished for not following the gameplan of someone that is not even on their team (seriously why should a ref be calling plays?) or of having their efforts stripped down to counting for nothing because the ref has already called the game in their favor.

The game is played for the uncertainty of the outcome otherwise every game session should just begin and end with "Okay guys...you live happily ever after. The end" because not knowing is what makes it worthwhile.

If the game were all about probability and chucking dice it would be entirely eclipsed by the digital media that does that faster, better and prettier...and Ah! There's the rub. You see...so many have been doing that, that it is precisely what has happened in many cases. And so the pendulum swings back to embracing the story and the protagonists...forgetting that we root for our heroes not because their victory is assured but for the very opposite reason...because we believe they could very well fail. We believe the odds ARE insurmountable...that Han Solo is lost to Jabba the Hutt...that Frodo will not succeed before man is lost...that Superman can't save everyone. When one is in the moment, there is no thought of the meta-existence of these characters because that ruins it all...yet so many of you would do that. So many of you would say "You are heroes...you win" thinking it is good...when it is really nothing of any meaning at all.

It is trivial. It is banal. It is not worth the hours spent.

Forget player buy-in. Practice DM buy-in. Have your players drive it all but have them do so knowing that it is up to them to succeed or fail and that you will merely be along for the ride to referee as required. They will be reluctant...they will be hesitant...and it will be your fault because you have not let them know any other way. It is the fault of countless DMs and years of stale thinking. They will embrace it though...in slow, faltering steps (and sometimes in great leaps) they will rise to the challenge and try and overcome challenges. Maybe some will be beyond them and they will have to approach from another angle or pursue other goals before returning...it will just make victory sweeter.

The difference between us, is that clearly I have faith in the people I game with. I know they can fly so I do not attach parachutes to them.

Hell, I have faith in other DMs players as well. More than their DMs probably. More than the DMs that smother them with "story" or that rob them with "protagonization"...

The question many need to ask is...if I have faith in YOUR players...why don't YOU?

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

I'm guessing ToeSama needs to adjust her sarcasm detection apparatus.



No, I knew it was a troll, but the comment was also the only thing that I hold any disagreement with in this thread. A DM only wears their crown because their player's allow them to, no matter how much power they do or don't wield in ruling their kingdoms. I personally support any DM's style so long as they're going to support the PCs enough to let them handle their own business, be they of the pre-planning breed, cooperation breed or whatever else have you.

That being said, I'm a dude XD
the dm can do what ever when ever. just be creative and rember its a co op story, make it memerable. 

 see:  fear of girls epsode 2 on youtube. nuff said

Troll king

When I desperately turned to his McGuffin that's when he exclaimed, "Finally!", which leads me to believe he planned it to be used all this time. Very annoying that.

Yeah, I don't want to be that kind of DM. But I also don't want to be the DM who says "No" to several plausible ideas before realizing that they might not jump through the right hoop, and that all the plausible ideas have already been blocked. Nor do I want to be the DM who drops copious hints or asks for "intelligence checks" so as to give hints. I'd rather keep the game moving in cool ways, so if my idea isn't cool enough to be thought of first, I'd rather go with the players' idea.

As for the "saying no...sometimes" bit, I'd rather limit it to two things:

    during combat, as per rules

I can understand this, and used to do the same. I still will suggest the actual rule, if I happen to know it, but only if the person has no idea what to do. But I find that saying no just slows things down, even if it's an honest mistake.

        Although even in this instance I prefer "let the dicedecide if it'll happen" rather than outright "no"

I'm a big fan of that approach, but I'd never offer it as advice to anyone, because some people take this as license to make the DC very hard, and often couple it with a discouraging way to fail. Some people do this unintentionally, including me, so I bend over backwards not to do that. After all, in action movies, the coolest stunts are the ones that work every time.

Agreed to a point.  I personally prefer that the story moves forward, regardless if that movement is in favor of the players or not.  This is why I adhere to 13th Age's policy of Failing Forward, which assumes that the PCs only absolutely fail on a 1 (but even then the story moves forward, since that failure isn't simply a "no", but "such a critical failure that something fun still happens anyway, but likely at the PC's expense, since it is a 1 after all")... although one of my houserules does allow players to take that natural 1 and turn it from a failure to a potential advantage.

With regarding to DCs however, I do have to take into consideration the environment that the PCs are in; the tricks being done by the PCs to please a crowd of peasant onlookers might amaze and amuse them, but do the same antics in a royal court where the Emperor would likely have seen the same stuff over and over again, and you'll likely see either a bored face where the Emperor would have them thrown out, or he'd still be amazed and amused up to a certain point, where he might misinterpret one of the tricks that the PCs did to be an insult to him or his [admittedly broad] daughter (mechanically: same result, different DCs, first one passes the DC, second one fails to reach the DC).

Just because "cool stunts" in action movies always work, doesn't mean that the implications of their actions are always in their favor, and let's face it: the Challenge aesthetic that some players seek is sometimes better served by either having stuff not work exactly as planned, or having stuff not work at all (at least not in favor of the PCs/players).

    when even the player can't elaborate how it could happen in the game world

Sure, I can see that. Though most of the stuff that can happen in the game world happens not through any logical process but because the rules say it can. So, why not just say it can, and not worry about the explanation?

        although even then, I'd allow the player to at least try to invoke his Relationship with an Icon that could be linked to the event in question
        if he still can't explain how his Relationship, background or even his One Unique Thing can be tied to the event, only then would I say, "no".

And what would you feel that had accomplished? How long would that process take?

I didn't say that the link to the event has to be logical, did I? ;)

That being said, please don't misinterpret my statement as "I'm just going to wait here while the player scratches his head over how this whole thing could work".  Whenever I ask the player to roll his Relationship Dice or background, I actively discuss with him about how it could work, providing my own suggestions on how he could approach the problem in a way that could be favorable to him, and if what he wants to happen is something I feel is too powerful or overlaps with the One Unique Thing of other PCs, I provide counter-proposals and alternative suggestions until we both get something we want to happen, then it's up to the dice if the event takes place as planned.

Which coincides with the base rules of 13th Age by the way, especially in how Relationship Dice work ;)
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Honest question, Yagami:

This is obviously purely hypothetical.  But suppose your players approached you and said they weren't having much fun at the table, and they were hoping you would try a different DM style: a style that you had previously considered, tried, and discarded.  Let's take it to the extreme and say it is a style you vehemently oppose, such as one where there is no challenge for the player.  What would you do? 
Anyone who thinks the collaborative style doesn't have challenge is fooling themselves. Most players make it harder for their character.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)

Anyone who thinks the collaborative style doesn't have challenge is fooling themselves. Most players make it harder for their character.



Hard for the character does NOT mean hard for the player. Challenge in-mileu does not necessarily translate to challenge in the meta. This is the distinction you are failing to understand.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Honest question, Yagami:

This is obviously purely hypothetical.  But suppose your players approached you and said they weren't having much fun at the table, and they were hoping you would try a different DM style: a style that you had previously considered, tried, and discarded.  Let's take it to the extreme and say it is a style you vehemently oppose, such as one where there is no challenge for the player.  What would you do? 



My current playstyle is based on 15 years of adopting, honing and refining/abandoning playstyle.

The irony of your question is that the "no challenge" style is EXACTLY what we were doing only a handful of years ago. It was discarded for the way we currently play (which is still being refined and honed since I am never content with my current skill-level) and, in doing so, I have players beating down my door to play at my table. I sometimes have to run 3 times a week. I have 2 seperate groups at the moment. I have 9 active players along with 5 that want to play but sadly can't because of scheduling conflict. So that is 14 people out of 14 people that I know that play. That is a rather large player base for most DMs to judge by no? ALL of them prefer what is being done now and keep in mind a couple of these players are players returning after a decade of not finding anything worthwhile in tabletop. They lapsed to video games and such...and are now back regularly.

EDIT: I'll also add that I'm currently helping my wife learn to DM and we are doing so using a collaborative model because it is simpler and easier. She wants to be able to run full-on D&D the way I am doing things but has to start somewhere so we're running the Marvel Superheroes Game.

So I clearly have no problem playing in that style...especially considering I'm the player in that situation (and I have more issues playing in playstyles than DMing for them).

Also, thank you for the honest question/discussion. Appreciated.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Anyone who thinks the collaborative style doesn't have challenge is fooling themselves. Most players make it harder for their character.



Hard for the character does NOT mean hard for the player. Challenge in-mileu does not necessarily translate to challenge in the meta. This is the distinction you are failing to understand.



Fine, Whoever thinks the collaborative style is not challenging for the player and character are fooling themselves. Most players make it harder on themselves because they enjoy that.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)

Anyone who thinks the collaborative style doesn't have challenge is fooling themselves. Most players make it harder for their character.



Hard for the character does NOT mean hard for the player. Challenge in-mileu does not necessarily translate to challenge in the meta. This is the distinction you are failing to understand.



Fine, Whoever thinks the collaborative style is not challenging for the player and character are fooling themselves. Most players make it harder on themselves because they enjoy that.



How so? If there is no risk for actual failure, including mechanical full-stop game failure, there is no challenge.

Is it possible to lose something that is entirely unique to the game mileu while playing? And to lose it in such a way that it is not retrievable? Period. Is it possible to lose/die by virtue of the decisions made IN MILEU combined with, potentially, the dice? Or are these things done only meta-contextually? If done meta-contextually, they are not challenges...they are self-inflicted complications (a great concept from Mutants & Masterminds) but they are not challenges in the game meaning of the word.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

@chaosfang: thanks for the clarification. I think we're mostly on the same page. I wish I'd had a better initial experience with 13th Age.

All: Don't feed the trolls. Their interest is in willfully misinterpreting what you say, so you correct them, so they can further willfully misinterpret what you say. I think this thread is pretty played out, unless anyone has any further questions. By which I mean actual questions.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Anyone who thinks the collaborative style doesn't have challenge is fooling themselves. Most players make it harder for their character.



Hard for the character does NOT mean hard for the player. Challenge in-mileu does not necessarily translate to challenge in the meta. This is the distinction you are failing to understand.



Fine, Whoever thinks the collaborative style is not challenging for the player and character are fooling themselves. Most players make it harder on themselves because they enjoy that.



How so? If there is no risk for actual failure, including mechanical full-stop game failure, there is no challenge. Complications usually stem from choices the player made. Those complications can represent real mechanical full-stop failure regardless of who came up with it. (DM or Player)

Is it possible to lose something that is entirely unique to the game mileu while playing? Yes And to lose it in such a way that it is not retrievable? Yes. Period. Is it possible to lose/die by virtue of the decisions made IN MILEU combined with, potentially, the dice? Yes Or are these things done only meta-contextually? No If done meta-contextually, they are not challenges...they are self-inflicted complications (a great concept from Mutants & Masterminds) but they are not challenges in the game meaning of the word.



There you go, answers in bold.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)

Also it's Milieu... you were missing an I on your big word there. Also it's Metacontexually no need for a dash.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)


How so? If there is no risk for actual failure, including mechanical full-stop game failure, there is no challenge. Complications usually stem from choices the player made. Those complications can represent real mechanical full-stop failure regardless of who came up with it. (DM or Player)



So a player can make a decision in-character and, for instance, die as a result and they do not have say-so in that outcome? Honestly asking you since others have clearly said this is not the case. Also note that "death" is merely one failure outcome, and I am using it for sake of brevity.

Is it possible to lose something that is entirely unique to the game mileu while playing? Yes And to lose it in such a way that it is not retrievable? Yes. Period. Is it possible to lose/die by virtue of the decisions made IN MILEU combined with, potentially, the dice? Yes Or are these things done only meta-contextually? No If done meta-contextually, they are not challenges...they are self-inflicted complications (a great concept from Mutants & Masterminds) but they are not challenges in the game meaning of the word.



Are the results of these decisions made on the part of the player or the part of the rules/rules adjudicator?

There you go, answers in bold.



I'll require further clarification.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Also it's Milieu... you were missing an I on your big word there. Also it's Metacontexually no need for a dash.



Milieu is something my fingers commonly mistype because they don't like to hit the I in rapid fashion like that for some reason.

Actually neither with or without a dash is correct as it is merely short-hand and not an all-together proper word. It is used fairly commonly, however, with and without the dash.

Oh also it would be metacontexTually. There's a T in there you missed when you tried to correct my big word by proving you knew how to do it right. Man doesn't that just suck? Trying to be a total smartie-pants in a real petty fashion yet managing to screw up by mistyping when you try to point out someone elses mistype? Oh man...how embarassing!

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.


How so? If there is no risk for actual failure, including mechanical full-stop game failure, there is no challenge. Complications usually stem from choices the player made. Those complications can represent real mechanical full-stop failure regardless of who came up with it. (DM or Player)



So a player can make a decision in-character and, for instance, die as a result and they do not have say-so in that outcome? Honestly asking you since others have clearly said this is not the case. Also note that "death" is merely one failure outcome, and I am using it for sake of brevity.

Sure, if the DM proposes it. It's pretty much like any other game. If you "create" your way out of situaton ("I land on soft dirt") you pretty much are being a tool and I won't play with you. (as a player you can make the outcome worse if you like I suppose, that happens from time to time) As a player if you propose an addition to the situation, you now have to deal with that addition and it's consequences. Its been added to the game and can affect you like any other thing, including death. If I say the BBEG killed my father and views my family tree as threat to his rule. I really can't bitch that he's shooting me first can I?

Is it possible to lose something that is entirely unique to the game mileu while playing? Yes And to lose it in such a way that it is not retrievable? Yes. Period. Is it possible to lose/die by virtue of the decisions made IN MILEU combined with, potentially, the dice? Yes Or are these things done only meta-contextually? No If done meta-contextually, they are not challenges...they are self-inflicted complications (a great concept from Mutants & Masterminds) but they are not challenges in the game meaning of the word.



Are the results of these decisions made on the part of the player or the part of the rules/rules adjudicator?

I would say the rules/rules adjucater first. The player has input but it's input based around the dice roll. (if I fail and I think of a more horrible out come for Pepe Rodriguez, my character, than than the DM did; we'll usually go with that.)

There you go, answers in bold.



I'll require further clarification.



Given, in bold.

I am sad and petty. You, Me, Lunar... We're perfect for each other!

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Sure, if the DM proposes it. It's pretty much like any other game. If you "create" your way out of situaton ("I land on soft dirt") you pretty much are being a tool and I won't play with you. (as a player you can make the outcome worse if you like I suppose, that happens from time to time) As a player if you propose an addition to the situation, you now have to deal with that addition and it's consequences. Its been added to the game and can affect you like any other thing, including death. If I say the BBEG killed my father and views my family tree as threat to his rule. I really can't bitch that he's shooting me first can I?



See the thing is I do not like this either/or mentality. Saying "I land on soft dirt" shouldn't be that big a deal in a fully collaborative game. When I was playing Mutants & Masterminds I didn't have any problem with someone saying something like that because usually there was something in mind...like the regenerator would get dropped off something high and instead of smooshing he slammed into mud and got buried. It was humorous. Did it make him use a round to unbury himself? Sure but it was far more preferable to being out of the fight for a bit so we rolled with it because it was amusing. It DID however lessen the challenge of the situation (which we recognized) but that doesn't mean the person was being a tool.

This is one of the things I really don't understand about the whole collaborative thing espoused around here...so much of it involves calling players "jerks" (or in this case "tools") for collaborating. I really don't get that. Collaboration can TOTALLY involve creating ways out of situations or around situations...the point is to not make it a case of one-upsmanship. Heck that's how you get Red Vs Blue style moments of someone having a huge crate dropped on them that busts open...except the crate was full of med-packs! "I was severely hurt but somehow feel oddly rejuvenated!"

It is also understood in collaboration that there will be something of a group concensus where people don't go "too far" and still hew to the rules of the game...which means if a roll comes up and someone is put down, they are down. Notice that is different from the "soft landing" because nothing had been determined about impact or damage yet. In fact, collaborative games BUILT TO BE COLLABORATIVE even include methodologies for things like this...for instance, in both M&M and in Marvel there are Hero/Plot Points that are form part of a give & take of narrative control and complication exchange between the player & DM.

I often feel like a lot of this "collaborative" stuff is really a smoke-screen to eat one's cake and have it too where the DM can still be an authority at the table (seriously in a fully collaborative game there is little need for a DM unless a story/narrative is being heavily presented) but the DM is spared from following through on his responsibilities in a lot of ways (as I have previously outlined). This feeling is exacerbated by the fact that so often I'm told I don't know what I'm talking about even though I have played the style mentioned (albeit without so many accusations of jerks/tools) but I have so rarely met anyone that plays or has played as I currently play. The knee-jerk defense reaction makes me very...wary of buying into what is said at face-value.

I would say the rules/rules adjucater first. The player has input but it's input based around the dice roll. (if I fail and I think of a more horrible out come for Pepe Rodriguez, my character, than than the DM did; we'll usually go with that.)



But there are those that contend any dice-roll based permanent or "de-protagonizing" (not my word, since it's not a word...just repeating what has been said) outcome is undesirable and the players should be spared it unless the player specifically requests it or gives constent to it. That concept is directly at odds with rules adjudication as one cannot adjudicate rules to those in a position of, apparently, superior authority on the matter. Do you see the disconnect I am experiencing? Mind you, this may actually be a disconnect between what YOU do and what others that say they play in the same style as you do, but when you are defending one it is hard not to take what one has said as gospel for the other, if you follow. If this is not how things occur for YOU, simply understand that this is how it has been (repeatedly) outlined to me by other proponents of the style, so my misunderstanding would not be with you but, instead, created by the difference.


Given, in bold.



And appreciated.

I am sad and petty. You, Me, Lunar... We're perfect for each other!



Let's not drag Lunar into this.

And, as you can see, I'm perfectly content to actually discuss things without sniping.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

See the thing is I do not like this either/or mentality. Saying "I land on soft dirt" shouldn't be that big a deal in a fully collaborative game. When I was playing Mutants & Masterminds I didn't have any problem with someone saying something like that because usually there was something in mind...like the regenerator would get dropped off something high and instead of smooshing he slammed into mud and got buried. It was humorous. Did it make him use a round to unbury himself? Sure but it was far more preferable to being out of the fight for a bit so we rolled with it because it was amusing. It DID however lessen the challenge of the situation (which we recognized) but that doesn't mean the person was being a tool.

This is one of the things I really don't understand about the whole collaborative thing espoused around here...so much of it involves calling players "jerks" (or in this case "tools") for collaborating. I really don't get that. Collaboration can TOTALLY involve creating ways out of situations or around situations...the point is to not make it a case of one-upsmanship. Heck that's how you get Red Vs Blue style moments of someone having a huge crate dropped on them that busts open...except the crate was full of med-packs! "I was severely hurt but somehow feel oddly rejuvenated!"

It is also understood in collaboration that there will be something of a group concensus where people don't go "too far" and still hew to the rules of the game...which means if a roll comes up and someone is put down, they are down. Notice that is different from the "soft landing" because nothing had been determined about impact or damage yet. In fact, collaborative games BUILT TO BE COLLABORATIVE even include methodologies for things like this...for instance, in both M&M and in Marvel there are Hero/Plot Points that are form part of a give & take of narrative control and complication exchange between the player & DM.



I don't mind the mud comparison. As long as it's an appropriate complication in line with the the story and is more fun for you. Go for it. You like it better and I, the DM in this case, like that you're engaged in the story. Win-win.

I often feel like a lot of this "collaborative" stuff is really a smoke-screen to eat one's cake and have it too where the DM can still be an authority at the table (seriously in a fully collaborative game there is little need for a DM unless a story/narrative is being heavily presented) but the DM is spared from following through on his responsibilities in a lot of ways (as I have previously outlined). This feeling is exacerbated by the fact that so often I'm told I don't know what I'm talking about even though I have played the style mentioned (albeit without so many accusations of jerks/tools) but I have so rarely met anyone that plays or has played as I currently play. The knee-jerk defense reaction makes me very...wary of buying into what is said at face-value.



Agreed that in a fully collaborative game there is little need for a DM. Most of these games aren't fully collaborative, but rather use collaborative elements to make DM prep easier and to keep players more engaged.



But there are those that contend any dice-roll based permanent or "de-protagonizing" (not my word, since it's not a word...just repeating what has been said) outcome is undesirable and the players should be spared it unless the player specifically requests it or gives constent to it. That concept is directly at odds with rules adjudication as one cannot adjudicate rules to those in a position of, apparently, superior authority on the matter. Do you see the disconnect I am experiencing? Mind you, this may actually be a disconnect between what YOU do and what others that say they play in the same style as you do, but when you are defending one it is hard not to take what one has said as gospel for the other, if you follow. If this is not how things occur for YOU, simply understand that this is how it has been (repeatedly) outlined to me by other proponents of the style, so my misunderstanding would not be with you but, instead, created by the difference.



Look I can't read everything posted on this forum because it's a wretched hive of scum and villany. So I'm going to assume this falls under the group that advocates dice rolls only when it's interesting. We still have the rules that we all agreed upon before  playing (in this case D&D) and those rules need to be respected. That being said, sometimes dice rolls get in the way of more engaging material. I don't want to spend any time rolling diplomacy to buy my sword. I actually want to spend as little time as possible spending rolls or describing mundane activities (AKA meeting at a tavern). I want to be rolling dice when failure could be cool, like when i'm doing heroic stuff.

Also I won't make fun of how you play. I get the feeling it's similar in the respects that the Players(characters... whatever) make their own story in the world you created. The way I play the Players make their own story in the world we created. That's only done to save prep time and it attempts to improve engagement by giving players challenges that they asked for.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)

Also I won't make fun of how you play. I get the feeling it's similar in the respects that the Players(characters... whatever) make their own story in the world you created. The way I play the Players make their own story in the world we created. That's only done to save prep time and it attempts to improve engagement by giving players challenges that they asked for.



To some, the difference in style between "you" and "we" (bolded above) means your game has no challenge, the players are "entitled," the DM needs to ask for permission, everyone gets out of every situation with magical goats, player agency is screwed up somehow, you're not playing D&D, there's no need for a DM...

For any decision or adjudication, ask yourself, "Is this going to be fun for everyone?" and "Is this going to lead to the creation of an exciting, memorable story?"

DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Session Zero  |  How to Adjudicate Actions  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools  |  Game Transcripts

Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Also I won't make fun of how you play. I get the feeling it's similar in the respects that the Players(characters... whatever) make their own story in the world you created. The way I play the Players make their own story in the world we created. That's only done to save prep time and it attempts to improve engagement by giving players challenges that they asked for.



To some, the difference in style between "you" and "we" (bolded above) means your game has no challenge, the players are "entitled," the DM needs to ask for permission, everyone gets out of every situation with magical goats, player agency is screwed up somehow, you're not playing D&D, there's no need for a DM...




That's not how it is though. It's just D&D. Games tend to be more challenging because players are masochists. The DM only cedes control to a player if the Player's result is more interesting and in line with dice results. Players can get out of situations with offered solutions only if they successfully overcome the challenges of those offered solutions (if the offered solution is ridiculous, why are you playing with that player?). I don't know what player agency is and I don't really care. We're still playing D&D... It really isn't very much different.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I don't mind the mud comparison. As long as it's an appropriate complication in line with the the story and is more fun for you. Go for it. You like it better and I, the DM in this case, like that you're engaged in the story. Win-win.



Hence my issue with saying someone lessening their fall is a "tool". There is far too little context to say something like that and far too little basis for saying something like that when one is working within a collaborative framework.

Agreed that in a fully collaborative game there is little need for a DM. Most of these games aren't fully collaborative, but rather use collaborative elements to make DM prep easier and to keep players more engaged.



Does the "partial collaborative" (which I think I will call this form of D&D from here on out) methodology not half-ass (if you'll forgive the phrase) both preparation and collaboration then? Isn't it then a mere crutch for the DM to do less work (though I find I do not do more work now under my current style since I just work far more efficiently) and to afford the player an illusion of creation? If a fully collaborative game does not require a DM, why continue to have one? Why not be fully collaborative? Would it not reinforce and strengthen all the supposed strengths of the partially collaborative methodology? What is the strength of keeping the DM and having it all be a half-measure between two highly opposed styles? Is it entirely for the DMs benefit?

You also spoke of engagement...but again, isn't partially collaborating a crutch for getting high levels of engagement by fully utilizing EITHER style? If I get high engagement out of the way I am running, but do not use partial collaboration, am I not clearly doing something far better under the "typical" D&D banner? If so, would that not be worth attempting to learn from? Again, why stay in the middle of two styles? Also, realize, I will not fully accept an answer of "It is what the players prefer" because, as I have pointed out, no one here seems to have ever done what I do...so they have no basis for that reasoning...it is merely an assumption about their players.

Look I can't read everything posted on this forum because it's a wretched hive of scum and villany. So I'm going to assume this falls under the group that advocates dice rolls only when it's interesting. We still have the rules that we all agreed upon before  playing (in this case D&D) and those rules need to be respected. That being said, sometimes dice rolls get in the way of more engaging material. I don't want to spend any time rolling diplomacy to buy my sword. I actually want to spend as little time as possible spending rolls or describing mundane activities (AKA meeting at a tavern). I want to be rolling dice when failure could be cool, like when i'm doing heroic stuff.



If your table cannot make things like, for instance, a tavern scene interesting or engaging...does this not speak more to your table than to the game if someone else CAN do that? My last two game nights both Sunday and Saturday were spent with very very little rolling at all (only the Saturday game even had any combat). The Sunday game consisted of, who'd have guessed, but a tavern scene at a brothel with the players speaking to a wizard they decided to seek out to try and convince him to help convince a guard captain to give them more time before the guards went barreling in against an unknown threat. Because they found the wizard interesting and because they got a chance to meaningfully play their characters while learning things, leveraging info and furthering their own agenda (not mine!) they were highly engaged. And it had nothing to do with dice or combat or anything like that. A tavern scene is a mere tool in the toolbox of a table (or a DM)...it is a poor craftsman that blames his tools for his results.

Also I won't make fun of how you play. I get the feeling it's similar in the respects that the Players(characters... whatever) make their own story in the world you created. The way I play the Players make their own story in the world we created. That's only done to save prep time and it attempts to improve engagement by giving players challenges that they asked for.



But you see, when I decided to be a DM I went in knowing that it required work and prep time...though now I prep very little because instead of relying on everyone else at the table I have developed my skills of improvisation and utilizing tools I have either acquired (read: stolen) or created. Since I do this, it frees the players to fully play the game and their characters without foisting any creative weight onto their shoulders. They need only play their role and not worry about behind the scenes. My players do not ask me for challenges..their characters seek them in the world. Every step of the way they, through their characters, are seeking out things and following an agenda they determine...and they can do so with their full attention instead of having to worry about the creationary-weight partial collaboration would put upon them...AND they can do so with real risk in the game because they are, many times, facing many unknowns that they had (of course) no hand in creating and no say over...it is actual discovery and not illusion. It is also working without a net. They find it more rewarding because the world, and the referee, are impartial towards them...so their accomplishments are actual accomplishments instead of a neatly crafted fiction for their benefit.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Also I won't make fun of how you play. I get the feeling it's similar in the respects that the Players(characters... whatever) make their own story in the world you created. The way I play the Players make their own story in the world we created. That's only done to save prep time and it attempts to improve engagement by giving players challenges that they asked for.



To some, the difference in style between "you" and "we" (bolded above) means your game has no challenge, the players are "entitled," the DM needs to ask for permission, everyone gets out of every situation with magical goats, player agency is screwed up somehow, you're not playing D&D, there's no need for a DM...




That's not how it is though. It's just D&D. Games tend to be more challenging because players are masochists. The DM only cedes control to a player if the Player's result is more interesting and in line with dice results. Players can get out of situations with offered solutions only if they successfully overcome the challenges of those offered solutions. I don't know what player agency is and I don't really care, but it seems the same as the other D&D games I've been in. We're still playing D&D... It really isn't very much different.



You would do well to ignore Iserith's strawman examples...he is notoriously disingenuous in his discussions. He also loves to play the victim card despite having been the one (along with others) to initially attack me (and others) upon me coming to the board and asking some simple questions in as respectful a manner as possible. His responses there-in are what burned any respect I could have had for him.

I think you'd benefit from reading up on player agency...it is a really important game concept and understanding it can really help a DM get into the psychology of their players.

As far as "still playing D&D"...the difference is not a realization you could easily have from the outside looking in. Some of my veterans are only now having it dawn on them in their current game and it took some of them TOTALLY by surprise to the point of being floored by it because it was such a total shift in their understanding of the game. Last Saturday was when it really started to kick in for them and it's been a snowball growing since then.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.


How so? If there is no risk for actual failure, including mechanical full-stop game failure, there is no challenge. Complications usually stem from choices the player made. Those complications can represent real mechanical full-stop failure regardless of who came up with it. (DM or Player)



So a player can make a decision in-character and, for instance, die as a result and they do not have say-so in that outcome? Honestly asking you since others have clearly said this is not the case. Also note that "death" is merely one failure outcome, and I am using it for sake of brevity.

Sure, if the DM proposes it. It's pretty much like any other game. If you "create" your way out of situaton ("I land on soft dirt") you pretty much are being a tool and I won't play with you. (as a player you can make the outcome worse if you like I suppose, that happens from time to time) As a player if you propose an addition to the situation, you now have to deal with that addition and it's consequences. Its been added to the game and can affect you like any other thing, including death. If I say the BBEG killed my father and views my family tree as threat to his rule. I really can't bitch that he's shooting me first can I?

Is it possible to lose something that is entirely unique to the game mileu while playing? Yes And to lose it in such a way that it is not retrievable? Yes. Period. Is it possible to lose/die by virtue of the decisions made IN MILEU combined with, potentially, the dice? Yes Or are these things done only meta-contextually? No If done meta-contextually, they are not challenges...they are self-inflicted complications (a great concept from Mutants & Masterminds) but they are not challenges in the game meaning of the word.



Are the results of these decisions made on the part of the player or the part of the rules/rules adjudicator?

I would say the rules/rules adjucater first. The player has input but it's input based around the dice roll. (if I fail and I think of a more horrible out come for Pepe Rodriguez, my character, than than the DM did; we'll usually go with that.)

There you go, answers in bold.



I'll require further clarification.



Given, in bold.

I am sad and petty. You, Me, Lunar... We're perfect for each other!



Sorry Yagami, he dragged me into this. And for the record, I'm not petty. I'll not snipe your little mistakes. I'm going to outright tell you I hate your advice, suggestions, and opinions.

To summarize the only thing I've really heard since I came to the DM advice board is "we don't like hearing players complain, so let's take the lazy way out". That particular opinion is the only thing I really see when I read carefully. "Oh, woe is me! I can't stand that the players don't like that I'm just trying to do my job as DM! The wounds are too much so I will let them have anything they want!" That crap is completely and totally detrimental to the core of the game. Simple as that. Do your damn job, determine the outcome of their decisions, and let them react to the outcome.

I also find it funny that you think a player creating their way out of a situation is them being a "tool". When collaborative play is based entirely around the concept of letting the player do what they want in an effort to have "fun".
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
I also find it funny that you think a player creating their way out of a situation is them being a "tool". When collaborative play is based entirely around the concept of letting the player do what they want in an effort to have "fun".

Even if what they want is to create themselves into dangerous situation?

Founder and figurehead of Just Say Yes!

Member of LGBT Gamers

Odds are, if 4-6 people can't figure out an answer you thought was obvious, you screwed up, not them. - JeffGroves
Which is why a DM should present problems to solve, not solutions to find. -FlatFoot
A game is a fictional construct created for the sake of the players, not the other way around. If you have a question "How do I keep X from happening at my table," and you feel that the out-of-game answer "Talk the the other people at your table" won't help, then the in-game answers "Remove mechanics A, B, and/or C, add mechanics L, M, and/or N" will not help either.
I also find it funny that you think a player creating their way out of a situation is them being a "tool". When collaborative play is based entirely around the concept of letting the player do what they want in an effort to have "fun".

Even if what they want is to create themselves into dangerous situation?



In fully collaborative games, "dangerous" is a relative term since it applies only to the character themselves. The player in a fully collaborative game need never fear danger in the game because of their narrative influence...and this is by design.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

I also find it funny that you think a player creating their way out of a situation is them being a "tool". When collaborative play is based entirely around the concept of letting the player do what they want in an effort to have "fun".

Even if what they want is to create themselves into dangerous situation?



My opinion is that they shouldn't be creating the situation they want. Period. End of story. I don't care if it's beneficial or hazardous for them. The only real influence a player should have on how a story plays out or what is in the game world is through the efforts of their character and decisions made through that character. The ultimate outcome is the DMs. If the DM is putting you constantly in bad outcomes despite good decisions or forethought, then the blame lies on the DM and he needs to learn to stop being an ass. But quite frequently on this board, the DMs seeking advice are not such horrible people and they're often looking for simpler solutions than "change the way your whole table works".
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I don't mind the mud comparison. As long as it's an appropriate complication in line with the the story and is more fun for you. Go for it. You like it better and I, the DM in this case, like that you're engaged in the story. Win-win.



Hence my issue with saying someone lessening their fall is a "tool". There is far too little context to say something like that and far too little basis for saying something like that when one is working within a collaborative framework.

Lessening your fall is getting out of a situation, the mud example was offering another challenge. One is fun, the other is asking for a free win button.

Agreed that in a fully collaborative game there is little need for a DM. Most of these games aren't fully collaborative, but rather use collaborative elements to make DM prep easier and to keep players more engaged.



Does the "partial collaborative" (which I think I will call this form of D&D from here on out) methodology not half-ass (if you'll forgive the phrase) both preparation and collaboration then? Isn't it then a mere crutch for the DM to do less work (though I find I do not do more work now under my current style since I just work far more efficiently) and to afford the player an illusion of creation? If a fully collaborative game does not require a DM, why continue to have one? Why not be fully collaborative? Would it not reinforce and strengthen all the supposed strengths of the partially collaborative methodology? What is the strength of keeping the DM and having it all be a half-measure between two highly opposed styles? Is it entirely for the DMs benefit?

You also spoke of engagement...but again, isn't partially collaborating a crutch for getting high levels of engagement by fully utilizing EITHER style? If I get high engagement out of the way I am running, but do not use partial collaboration, am I not clearly doing something far better under the "typical" D&D banner? If so, would that not be worth attempting to learn from? Again, why stay in the middle of two styles? Also, realize, I will not fully accept an answer of "It is what the players prefer" because, as I have pointed out, no one here seems to have ever done what I do...so they have no basis for that reasoning...it is merely an assumption about their players.

For starters. I get what you're doing. Its fine. If your players are engaged and having fun, congratulations! You do you man. If you want to understand what I do, cool.

I would like to try a fully collaborative style, with the people I play with it could be really fun. We just haven't tried it yet.

As far as "half assing" the prep, It doesn't. For me it's just more efficient time wise. Whether it's a crutch or not, I don't really care. If i'm doing less work and my players and I are having more fun I'll keep doing it. There isn't an illusion of conrol either, I trust the players I play with to come up with interesting material that adds to the established story and makes it more interesting and challenging.

Look I can't read everything posted on this forum because it's a wretched hive of scum and villany. So I'm going to assume this falls under the group that advocates dice rolls only when it's interesting. We still have the rules that we all agreed upon before  playing (in this case D&D) and those rules need to be respected. That being said, sometimes dice rolls get in the way of more engaging material. I don't want to spend any time rolling diplomacy to buy my sword. I actually want to spend as little time as possible spending rolls or describing mundane activities (AKA meeting at a tavern). I want to be rolling dice when failure could be cool, like when i'm doing heroic stuff.



If your table cannot make things like, for instance, a tavern scene interesting or engaging...does this not speak more to your table than to the game if someone else CAN do that? My last two game nights both Sunday and Saturday were spent with very very little rolling at all (only the Saturday game even had any combat). The Sunday game consisted of, who'd have guessed, but a tavern scene at a brothel with the players speaking to a wizard they decided to seek out to try and convince him to help convince a guard captain to give them more time before the guards went barreling in against an unknown threat. Because they found the wizard interesting and because they got a chance to meaningfully play their characters while learning things, leveraging info and furthering their own agenda (not mine!) they were highly engaged. And it had nothing to do with dice or combat or anything like that. A tavern scene is a mere tool in the toolbox of a table (or a DM)...it is a poor craftsman that blames his tools for his results.

Don't disparage my gaming table. I'll cut you.
(Sarcasm, I won't actually cut you. I need to play more D&D)

As far as Tavern scene, I mean the "how you meet each other and find your quest in a tavern" scene. Your examples are interesting scenes that just so happen to be in a tavern.  If that makes sense. It sounds like what you're doing is a great deal of giving the players what they want (that includes a challenge because a group that doesn't want challenge isn't a fun group is it?) and they enjoy it. That's good for you. hooray or something?

My point was I skip scenes and dice rolls that aren't engaging and move to the more egaging stuff.

Also I won't make fun of how you play. I get the feeling it's similar in the respects that the Players(characters... whatever) make their own story in the world you created. The way I play the Players make their own story in the world we created. That's only done to save prep time and it attempts to improve engagement by giving players challenges that they asked for.



But you see, when I decided to be a DM I went in knowing that it required work and prep time...though now I prep very little because instead of relying on everyone else at the table I have developed my skills of improvisation and utilizing tools I have either acquired (read: stolen) or created. Since I do this, it frees the players to fully play the game and their characters without foisting any creative weight onto their shoulders. They need only play their role and not worry about behind the scenes. My players do not ask me for challenges..their characters seek them in the world. Every step of the way they, through their characters, are seeking out things and following an agenda they determine...and they can do so with their full attention instead of having to worry about the creationary-weight partial collaboration would put upon them...AND they can do so with real risk in the game because they are, many times, facing many unknowns that they had (of course) no hand in creating and no say over...it is actual discovery and not illusion. It is also working without a net. They find it more rewarding because the world, and the referee, are impartial towards them...so their accomplishments are actual accomplishments instead of a neatly crafted fiction for their benefit.



Awesome for you I guess. Cookie? If you have highly engaged players and you like what you do, I'm happy for you. Whatever.

I wouldn't say its neatly crafted fiction. They still need to roll dice, they still need to kill monsters, they still need to rescue the princess. They don't just do it. The word weight is interesting. I would say that a weight had been lifted for the players to more enjoy the aspects of their characters how they would like to see it and challenge themselves in ways they'd like to be challenged instead of me guessing it (i'm still very good at guessing what they want).

It's interesting, we're both DMing for players that play their roles and aren't worried about anything behind the scenes. Yours don't because they trust you, Mine don't because they're fully aware the story is going to go somewhere interesting for them. Both players are happy, awesome for us I guess. Both sets of players are following their own agenda. Both are are working with real risks, both are discovering, both have surprises, both have acomplished things.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)


How so? If there is no risk for actual failure, including mechanical full-stop game failure, there is no challenge. Complications usually stem from choices the player made. Those complications can represent real mechanical full-stop failure regardless of who came up with it. (DM or Player)



So a player can make a decision in-character and, for instance, die as a result and they do not have say-so in that outcome? Honestly asking you since others have clearly said this is not the case. Also note that "death" is merely one failure outcome, and I am using it for sake of brevity.

Sure, if the DM proposes it. It's pretty much like any other game. If you "create" your way out of situaton ("I land on soft dirt") you pretty much are being a tool and I won't play with you. (as a player you can make the outcome worse if you like I suppose, that happens from time to time) As a player if you propose an addition to the situation, you now have to deal with that addition and it's consequences. Its been added to the game and can affect you like any other thing, including death. If I say the BBEG killed my father and views my family tree as threat to his rule. I really can't bitch that he's shooting me first can I?

Is it possible to lose something that is entirely unique to the game mileu while playing? Yes And to lose it in such a way that it is not retrievable? Yes. Period. Is it possible to lose/die by virtue of the decisions made IN MILEU combined with, potentially, the dice? Yes Or are these things done only meta-contextually? No If done meta-contextually, they are not challenges...they are self-inflicted complications (a great concept from Mutants & Masterminds) but they are not challenges in the game meaning of the word.



Are the results of these decisions made on the part of the player or the part of the rules/rules adjudicator?

I would say the rules/rules adjucater first. The player has input but it's input based around the dice roll. (if I fail and I think of a more horrible out come for Pepe Rodriguez, my character, than than the DM did; we'll usually go with that.)

There you go, answers in bold.



I'll require further clarification.



Given, in bold.

I am sad and petty. You, Me, Lunar... We're perfect for each other!



Sorry Yagami, he dragged me into this. And for the record, I'm not petty. I'll not snipe your little mistakes. I'm going to outright tell you I hate your advice, suggestions, and opinions.

To summarize the only thing I've really heard since I came to the DM advice board is "we don't like hearing players complain, so let's take the lazy way out". That particular opinion is the only thing I really see when I read carefully. "Oh, woe is me! I can't stand that the players don't like that I'm just trying to do my job as DM! The wounds are too much so I will let them have anything they want!" That crap is completely and totally detrimental to the core of the game. Simple as that. Do your damn job, determine the outcome of their decisions, and let them react to the outcome.

I also find it funny that you think a player creating their way out of a situation is them being a "tool". When collaborative play is based entirely around the concept of letting the player do what they want in an effort to have "fun".



My man! We're totes BFFS!!! FOR REALZ!!!

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)


How so? If there is no risk for actual failure, including mechanical full-stop game failure, there is no challenge. Complications usually stem from choices the player made. Those complications can represent real mechanical full-stop failure regardless of who came up with it. (DM or Player)



So a player can make a decision in-character and, for instance, die as a result and they do not have say-so in that outcome? Honestly asking you since others have clearly said this is not the case. Also note that "death" is merely one failure outcome, and I am using it for sake of brevity.

Sure, if the DM proposes it. It's pretty much like any other game. If you "create" your way out of situaton ("I land on soft dirt") you pretty much are being a tool and I won't play with you. (as a player you can make the outcome worse if you like I suppose, that happens from time to time) As a player if you propose an addition to the situation, you now have to deal with that addition and it's consequences. Its been added to the game and can affect you like any other thing, including death. If I say the BBEG killed my father and views my family tree as threat to his rule. I really can't bitch that he's shooting me first can I?

Is it possible to lose something that is entirely unique to the game mileu while playing? Yes And to lose it in such a way that it is not retrievable? Yes. Period. Is it possible to lose/die by virtue of the decisions made IN MILEU combined with, potentially, the dice? Yes Or are these things done only meta-contextually? No If done meta-contextually, they are not challenges...they are self-inflicted complications (a great concept from Mutants & Masterminds) but they are not challenges in the game meaning of the word.



Are the results of these decisions made on the part of the player or the part of the rules/rules adjudicator?

I would say the rules/rules adjucater first. The player has input but it's input based around the dice roll. (if I fail and I think of a more horrible out come for Pepe Rodriguez, my character, than than the DM did; we'll usually go with that.)

There you go, answers in bold.



I'll require further clarification.



Given, in bold.

I am sad and petty. You, Me, Lunar... We're perfect for each other!



Sorry Yagami, he dragged me into this. And for the record, I'm not petty. I'll not snipe your little mistakes. I'm going to outright tell you I hate your advice, suggestions, and opinions.

To summarize the only thing I've really heard since I came to the DM advice board is "we don't like hearing players complain, so let's take the lazy way out". That particular opinion is the only thing I really see when I read carefully. "Oh, woe is me! I can't stand that the players don't like that I'm just trying to do my job as DM! The wounds are too much so I will let them have anything they want!" That crap is completely and totally detrimental to the core of the game. Simple as that. Do your damn job, determine the outcome of their decisions, and let them react to the outcome.

I also find it funny that you think a player creating their way out of a situation is them being a "tool". When collaborative play is based entirely around the concept of letting the player do what they want in an effort to have "fun".



My man! We're totes BFFS!!! FOR REALZ!!!



I kno rite? We should grab some drinks and start a bar fight.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
I also find it funny that you think a player creating their way out of a situation is them being a "tool". When collaborative play is based entirely around the concept of letting the player do what they want in an effort to have "fun".

Even if what they want is to create themselves into dangerous situation?



My opinion is that they shouldn't be creating the situation they want. Period. End of story. I don't care if it's beneficial or hazardous for them. The only real influence a player should have on how a story plays out or what is in the game world is through the efforts of their character and decisions made through that character. The ultimate outcome is the DMs. If the DM is putting you constantly in bad outcomes despite good decisions or forethought, then the blame lies on the DM and he needs to learn to stop being an ass. But quite frequently on this board, the DMs seeking advice are not such horrible people and they're often looking for simpler solutions than "change the way your whole table works".



Man I get it. You want your game to simulate a world. If your players like it. Awesome.

But me, If I have a player who wants a more challenging scenario and it fits in the theme, story, and world I'm telling; I go for that option every time. My players like it.

If your players are happy and so are mine, what's the issue?

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/8.jpg)

I also find it funny that you think a player creating their way out of a situation is them being a "tool". When collaborative play is based entirely around the concept of letting the player do what they want in an effort to have "fun".

Even if what they want is to create themselves into dangerous situation?



My opinion is that they shouldn't be creating the situation they want. Period. End of story. I don't care if it's beneficial or hazardous for them. The only real influence a player should have on how a story plays out or what is in the game world is through the efforts of their character and decisions made through that character. The ultimate outcome is the DMs. If the DM is putting you constantly in bad outcomes despite good decisions or forethought, then the blame lies on the DM and he needs to learn to stop being an ass. But quite frequently on this board, the DMs seeking advice are not such horrible people and they're often looking for simpler solutions than "change the way your whole table works".



Man I get it. You want your game to simulate a world. If your players like it. Awesome.

But me, If I have a player who wants a more challenging scenario and it fits in the theme, story, and world I'm telling; I go for that option every time. My players like it.

If your players are happy and so are mine, what's the issue?



I think the issue is the message conveyed to people who come to this board and to newcomers to the game. It is my opinion that the collaborative style is not d&d and to turn people to it is to turn people away from d&d. Which as a fan of the game, is not what I want to see. Nor is it particularly helpful when I do find myself in a quandry when I need help from other DMs. I got really sick of hearing "change everything" as an answer, and then having subtle jabs at my mental state, character, and all around person when I politely declined the suggestions looking for something that was more in line with what I do.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/


If your players are happy and so are mine, what's the issue?



I think the big issue that I have had, and that I know Lunar has, is that it is damaging for a board when the most oft-repeated advice is either A) ask your players or B) change the entire paradigm of your table.

These (boiled down) answers are the two most common parroted answers on the board. They've become the answer to EVERYTHING and it is a disservice to those that come asking for help. Seriously, just sticky a damn thread to the top that details the partially collaborative style...whatever. I'd be cool with that! At least people can read it at their leisure.

Instead, however, when someone comes in with a question that can be answered, every topic gets derailed with the partially collaborative method because it invariably leads to a million questions other than the one originally asked by the op...so instead of discussing merits of an answer within the framework that already exists, the person has to completely shift gears and discuss the merits of each individual framework. It is the car equivalent of someone telling you to fix your fuel-intake valve by switching entirely to a car that runs on lollipops and used books. Does it solve the problem? Uh only in that it totally reframes the entire situation so that the issue isn't answered so much as entirely circumvented by no longer discussing cars.

This happens again and again and again and again. People have PM'd me telling me this is the case...saying that they don't post because it's the case...and thanking me for giving actual answers to questions.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.



If your players are happy and so are mine, what's the issue?



I think the big issue that I have had, and that I know Lunar has, is that it is damaging for a board when the most oft-repeated advice is either A) ask your players or B) change the entire paradigm of your table.

These (boiled down) answers are the two most common parroted answers on the board. They've become the answer to EVERYTHING and it is a disservice to those that come asking for help. Seriously, just sticky a damn thread to the top that details the partially collaborative style...whatever. I'd be cool with that! At least people can read it at their leisure.

Instead, however, when someone comes in with a question that can be answered, every topic gets derailed with the partially collaborative method because it invariably leads to a million questions other than the one originally asked by the op...so instead of discussing merits of an answer within the framework that already exists, the person has to completely shift gears and discuss the merits of each individual framework. It is the car equivalent of someone telling you to fix your fuel-intake valve by switching entirely to a car that runs on lollipops and used books. Does it solve the problem? Uh only in that it totally reframes the entire situation so that the issue isn't answered so much as entirely circumvented by no longer discussing cars.

This happens again and again and again and again. People have PM'd me telling me this is the case...saying that they don't post because it's the case...and thanking me for giving actual answers to questions.



Add this explanation to mine.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
If your players are happy and so are mine, what's the issue?

Change.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

If your players are happy and so are mine, what's the issue?

Change.




Truly some people are the event horizon of a blackhole from which no honest discussion can escape. I call this...the strawman nebula.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Sign In to post comments