PDA

View Full Version : Breaking Stuff: A "DM vs. Player Fallacy" Question



Pages : [1] 2

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-27, 12:10 AM
Having wandered around various boards for a while and seen various complaints about the "DM vs. Players fallacy," I've arrived at a singular question:

Just how many DMs actually DO that sort of stuff?

By which I mean things like, "When making a Pathfinder wizard, always take a familiar for your Arcane Bond. If you take a bonded object, you're just begging your DM to have a monster sunder it in the middle of a fight." "NEVER use Wish. The DM WILL punish you for it." "Always go for natural attacks and Pounce, so your DM can't take you out of the fight by sundering your weapon of choice." "When writing your backstory, DON'T say that you have siblings or parents or any other sort of connection to another person. The DM WILL have the villain kidnap or threaten them at some point." "NEVER sunder anything in a fight. You'll miss out on the loot."

Other times it'll be on the opposite side, advising DM's to utilize any dirty trick possible to keep the players on their toes, such as having enemies burn the wizard's spellbook, or to punish players by throwing them into a challenge that specifically targets a weakness (like an adventure requiring social grace and cunning when the party is geared more towards kick-in-the-door style of play).

It seems like, at the core, the only way to provide a challenge for your players is to pounce on any weakness they have to make things "more interesting" or "more dramatic," and that players, likewise, have to optimize every possible aspect of your character, even story-based ones, to limit the DM's options to screw you over.

I'm guessing that this mentality is probably exagerrated by this at some point, but at the core it's still that "DM vs. Players" mentality, and I'm just not sure how prevalent among DMs that truly is. I mean, there ARE some real examples (Tomb of Horrors or Tucker's Kobolds, for example) but those are usually only one-off instances, rather than an entire campaign.

Has anyone ever resorted to dastardly stuff like this, either as a player by working incredibly hard to avoid any flaws the DM could exploit in your character, or as a DM by resorting to relatively unusual tactics to scare players out of their comfort zone, usually by having a monster break their stuff, or break their own stuff so the PCs can't take it from them?

Jude_H
2011-08-27, 02:25 AM
Wishes are there to be corrupted - it's a staple of the fiction. Similarly, backstories exist to hook plots - it's where the PCs get a free pass to play with the game world and where the GM can demonstrate that the game considers the PCs; it's not just an alternatively presented novel.

I think much of this is hyperbole, but the playstyle isn't wrong on its own. It's fun to toss conflicts at the group that can't be solved by the characters' insta-win niches. It's just more interesting if the game doesn't run in tiny problem-less circles.

There's a reason Superman's troubles are more social than punchy.

Engine
2011-08-27, 02:46 AM
Anectodal evidence:

I had once a DM who played that way. PC's stuff constantly sundered, stolen or just confiscated, PCs constantly thrown into lose-lose situations.

At 10th level (the end of the campaign) my character had a +1 Holy Scimitar and a Mithral Breastplate, nothing more. From 2nd level to 10th gold was regularly lost one way or another, loot found during the campaign regularly stolen or broken (I wonder why giving it in the first place) and put in crazy situations like "Kill one baby or I'll kill two dozen babies" from an NPC exceptionally stronger than the party (no kidding).

While most of my DMs weren't like that, now I'm a bit suspicious of them and semiconsciously try to avoid to be so naive. Now I'm playing a PF Diviner, so I try to find convoluted plans to protect my spellbook (and having a couple of reserve books just in case in secure places). The worst part is...
...that my DM is showing no intention of trying some nasty trick on me.

Silus
2011-08-27, 03:35 AM
Edit: This post isn't really about the DM breaking stuff, but more on the generic "DM vs PC" mentality.

One of the first DMs I played with outright told me he runs his games as player vs DM (I kid you not nor do I exaggerate). This has, sadly, colored my expectations of most DM's games, probably because it was after losing my first D&D character.

Here's the story if you have the urge to read it:

Ok, so here's how things went down. We had a party of...4, all around lvl 6 or so. A Dwarf Fighter, a Ghost Adept (low magic, low wealth game mind you), a Prinny....something, and my character, a Half-Machine Human Ranger. No magic items to speak of and only a NPC class as a caster. The session started out with us having more or less jacked Captain Hook's ship and the Prinny (a horrendously broken (see: CANNOT DIE) homebrew race devised by the DM) was AWOL in the Abyss (more on this later). So we have a crew of Troglodytes and some cannons and we're about to raid this island that was supposed to have a time portal thing on it that we were supposed to destroy and get back to our own time (not my character's though). So we're flying with the help of some pixie dust. We get to the island and we start debating on ow we're to proceed. I suggest we land on the coast and stealth in. The Low Wisdom Dwarf (played by a player that does this sort of stuff really well) suggested we fly straight in and look. The Ghost (who was the "leader") opted for a "compromise" of circling the island and slowly working inward.

So needless to say, we stumble upon this base hidden by an illusionary dome. Some elf walks out of one of the buildings, sees us, snaps her fingers, and the illusionary dome turns to solid stone, locking us in. Cue spelljammer ships from the dry docks. I point out that we all have darkvision and that since the dome is now stone, it's all but pitch black at the top, so we should just stalk the enemy ships in the dark. Yeah, the DM wasn't having that. The previously mentioned Elf blew apart our ship with some spell. We somehow survived and ran to the armory first (we were gonna get killed before someone invoked Pazuzu), then the portal/time gate building.

So while we're doing this, the Prinny is making his way through this Abyssal maze (with the Demon Prince that looks like a minotaur). He kills some minotaurs, then somehow hops layers to the Gnoll one and somehow managed to not only get a warparty of ogres to follow him, but a Gnoll with a magic axe and an Abyssal Purple Worm (all despite Prinnies having a thing where people have to make a Will save or hate them on sight).

So anyway, portal to the Abyss opens up, and out comes the Prinny with his warband. So we're all "yay" and get ready to start wrecking portal, as per the mission. We in walk the Elf, smug as you please and more or less says "leave the portal along, go home and I won't kill you". Well the Dwarf is like "haha, yeah right" and attacks her. And she starts kicking our butts. I mean, over the course of the fight, she summons a pair of Large Astral Constructs and two-shots the Abyssal Purple Worm (the second hit done whilst being swallowed whole). She turns the Ghost to crystal as well and punts the Prinny elsewhere.

So I, being the resourceful one (and only having a pair of claws to work with) decide to raid the armory we passed in hopes of getting some weapon. No dice, the armory is locked by TEH POWAH OF PAZUZU (after I took two full turns to run there). So I'm pretty ticked at this point. So I decide to run to the Spelljammer ships in the dry dock. The DM asks which one, and I reply with "whichever one is closest with cannons" (understandable as we're getting pretty jacked up at this point). So I get aboard the ship, hop into the command seat and try to fly the ship at the portal building. "Oh, you have to be a caster to fly a Spelljammer." Cue excessive swearing. So I load a cannon and blow up the portal (with the Dwarf's help). And, seeing as he got us in this mess in the first place, I ended up killing the dwarf and joining the BBEG Elf.

Oh, and the Elf? Rogue 2/Psion 18. And that "help" we were supposed to get from selling a soul (the Dwarf's) to Pazuzu? There was apparently a ship in the docks that my Half-Machine could have piloted, but I didn't specify that I wanted that ship. Didn't help that the DM didn't give us any hint that it was there.

The guy never gave us escape routes if we goofed and was, to sum it up, very, very inflexible. As such, I ended up more or less fueling the DM vs PC fire by trying to "beat" him whenever I was a PC to the point of actively trying to derail any rails he put us on.

Traab
2011-08-27, 09:51 AM
The problem here is, you wont often see topics about how smoothly a game ran, the dm didnt go out of his way to be an ass, the players werent sundering the entire dungeon with some obscene critical attack from a mega optimized melee character, whatever. Those make for boring stories.

What you DO see are the complaints. The DM who let you roll up a really interesting concept for a class, then went out of his way to make sure your concept never worked, the player who managed to sneak some innocent looking feat past the dm, then proceeded to abuse it horribly to break the campaign.

The dm whose campaign isnt just on rails, the rails are surrounded by prison bars made of indestructible metal, with a roof of exploding rune covered poisoned spikes. NOTHING lets you get off the tracks, even trying to go back home turns into the next event on his list, standing still triggers another event that forces you onwards you could try to join the bad guys with a charisma of 100+ and all sorts of diplomancer cheese and they would still refuse and continue attacking you.

Or the opposite as you hear about the players that go out of their way to ruin anything the dm tries to setup. That goddess who is trying to guide them to a safe spot and start the story? They try to rape her. That merchant caravan under attack by your groups enemies? They wait for the caravan to get wiped out then mop up the bad guys for extra loot. The king who wants to hire them for a mission? They demand his daughter as payment. Basically, they treat all plot hooks as something to be destroyed.

Since all you see here are those types of stories, id imagine it rather horribly taints your view on how these things work, and these minority stories seem to be what happens all the time, because thats what gets talked about on here.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-27, 11:38 AM
This was more along the lines of optimization guides saying "Don't use equipment. At all. The DM will have the monsters sunder or burn it."

But those ARE some scary stories! Who'd be stupid enough to try and violate a goddess?!

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 11:59 AM
But those ARE some scary stories! Who'd be stupid enough to try and violate a goddess?!

Most proper responses by the goddess effectively destroy the DMs plans, so it is win-win if that's the goal.

The Glyphstone
2011-08-27, 12:02 PM
This was more along the lines of optimization guides saying "Don't use equipment. At all. The DM will have the monsters sunder or burn it."

But those ARE some scary stories! Who'd be stupid enough to try and violate a goddess?!

That was posted on the boards here a while back, I remember it. Hilarious, in a thirty-car-pileup kind of way.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-27, 12:09 PM
If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go curl up in a fetal position on my bed holding on to my old teddy bear for dear life.

After I hear more about this sort of question. About DMs breaking their players' stuff.

Traab
2011-08-27, 12:29 PM
If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go curl up in a fetal position on my bed holding on to my old teddy bear for dear life.

After I hear more about this sort of question. About DMs breaking their players' stuff.

There was a story where this guy had some sort of horrible disease. He had to take a certain potion several times a day I think, to keep it in check. His only real bonus was to alchemy specifically so he was able to make his own potion. The dm looked at it, agreed, then proceeded to, in the first fight, have an orc or whatever just HAPPEN to smash his potion flask. The player had a few extras on hand so no big deal. Then later on we learn that most of his backups had been destroyed. /sigh. They go to town and the player says he is renting a kitchen or whatever to craft some more of his potion.

The dm is really pushing him to go with the group to meet the king, but the player is basically saying, "Look, you destroyed all my potion, I need more, and itll take several hours to craft. They can meet the king, get the quest, then fill me in when we meet back up." The dm then tries to arrange him to fail his craft attempt, (thank god for that bonus that made it almost impossible) then proceeded to tell him the kitchen caught fire, destroying all his potion materials, and now the villagers think he is a witch or something. When the player loses it, the dm basically gives off some standard, "I didnt want you here anyways" type response.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 12:33 PM
It's a vicious cycle. It doesn't matter where it begins. It can begin by having a player that naturally tends towards optimisation, with a DM that has to work harder to challenge him, and resorts to assaulting every possible weakness because he just doesn't know what else to do; or it can begin with a DM that thinks it's only fun when the players feel fear/tension, not the characters, so he naturally targets stuff the players care about, like a wizard's spellbook, a fighter's favoured weapon, and any weaknesses that can get the players themselves to actually care about the encounters and work their butts off to save their characters from certain doom. That causes players to optimise like mad as a consequence.

Again, it doesn't matter what starts the cycle. It's self-perpetuating. In fact, in many cases, all it takes is one tiny change ("Hey, I read this thread on the internet about all the stuff I can do with a Conjurer!" or "Hey, I read this thread on the internet about making encounters tougher!") and it starts to swiftly spiral down.

Also, observational bias. For every game where this happens, there's at least one more game we never hear of because it all went smoothly.

Arbane
2011-08-27, 12:44 PM
But those ARE some scary stories! Who'd be stupid enough to try and violate a goddess?!

Exalted characters?

Anyone else needs to remember what happened to Actaeon, and all HE did was catch a peek...

WarKitty
2011-08-27, 12:47 PM
There's also a certain amount of this that can go on with newer DM's. You create your carefully crafted dungeon, and all of a sudden one of your players comes up with a trick that bypasses everything! You're now left without anything planned. The easiest thing to do is find some reason to take away the player's trick. Not realizing what's going on, the players try to come up with a way to make their trick safer, which makes the DM work harder to try to make it not work. The proper solution, of course, is to either find a sensible way to handle the trick (so it's still effective but doesn't autokill everything) or, if that can't be done, ask the player OOC to tone it down.

Volthawk
2011-08-27, 12:57 PM
There was a story where this guy had some sort of horrible disease. He had to take a certain potion several times a day I think, to keep it in check. His only real bonus was to alchemy specifically so he was able to make his own potion. The dm looked at it, agreed, then proceeded to, in the first fight, have an orc or whatever just HAPPEN to smash his potion flask. The player had a few extras on hand so no big deal. Then later on we learn that most of his backups had been destroyed. /sigh. They go to town and the player says he is renting a kitchen or whatever to craft some more of his potion.

The dm is really pushing him to go with the group to meet the king, but the player is basically saying, "Look, you destroyed all my potion, I need more, and itll take several hours to craft. They can meet the king, get the quest, then fill me in when we meet back up." The dm then tries to arrange him to fail his craft attempt, (thank god for that bonus that made it almost impossible) then proceeded to tell him the kitchen caught fire, destroying all his potion materials, and now the villagers think he is a witch or something. When the player loses it, the dm basically gives off some standard, "I didnt want you here anyways" type response.

Yep, Lanky's first story.

Starbuck_II
2011-08-27, 01:00 PM
Ah, yes.
When I was tortured in game. No hand waving. None of the PCs did anything to help (and I've saved their lives, the ingrates).

I had two choices take it or attempt to dimension door away. Guess which I took? Dimension door. One of the PCs took a swing at me, but luckily I was missed (I might have made the Concentration check but I was wounded from torture so my hp was low).

The DM said but you'll be too far away to adventure with the party. I said I didn't care, like I trust my life with any of them anymore.

Granted, the PCs only made situation worse, the DM was issue (who tortures a PC?).

QuidEst
2011-08-27, 01:14 PM
In my mind, the best response to a take-'n-break DM is to:
A) Let your current character die. Shouldn't be too hard.
B) Roll up a new character- something fun, like a Bard.
C) Make them a fatalist with a sense of humor.
D) Start treating it like a story. Try to work in good jokes, pranks, and funny dialogue.
E) If you're a Bard, remember that no matter how much of your stuff the DM breaks, you can still summon a set of bagpipes or an accordion six times a day for one minute per level.

Steward
2011-08-27, 01:20 PM
Exalted characters?

Anyone else needs to remember what happened to Actaeon, and all HE did was catch a peek...

Also, Priapus and Hestia, which has the added... 'joy' of actually being on purpose.

Volos
2011-08-27, 01:30 PM
In responce to the side topic of "DM vs. Player Fallacy"...

I have experienced this from both sides of the fence. As a player I have had a DM who was against the PCs accomplishing anything and wanted his players to be miserable. Yes it was terrible, but I didn't rush to the forums just to complain about it. I dealt with it. The rest of the players appointed me to be their represenative in trying to make the DM come to his senses. So I talked to him and explained that we weren't having fun. He stated quite simply that he knew and had meant for it to be that way. I asked if there was any chance that he would change, he said no. So we quit his game and formed a new group without him as the DM. It was the best solution and we took it.

As a DM I have had players who find it nessesary to give me nothing story wise while still attempting to destroy my plots. This wasn't an issue of trying to jump the rails, specifically since I was running a sandbox game in a setting which I was intimately familiar with. The players who had rebelled and tried to destroy any developing plot had been the same players who had contributed toward it. Yet for some reason they decided it was time to fight against the DM. I tried talking it out with them, but they just wanted to be destructive to the group's and my own fun. I had tried to talor my playstyle to better match their new attitudes, but that didn't work either so we had to let them go.

I don't know what starts or creates this sort of fallacy that playing an RPG must be DM vs Players, but I have noticed that people who dislike social gatherings or whom have OOC drama with other members of the group happen to be the ones who believe in this fallacy more often than not. Other times it comes up out of nowhere without warning, much like cancer. Yes, I think it would be appropiate to classify this sort of behavior as RPG cancer. It looks like a DM or Player, but it transforms and starts acting against its normal wants or needs. It forgets its part in the group and lashes out at what used to be a helpful friend or enjoyable experience. As a DM I have found that I can avoid this sort of behavior or thinking myself by wanting my players to have fun and by truely wishing for the success of the PCs. I may enjoy the evilness of my BBEG, but I must want to see him brought down by the heroes.

Quietus
2011-08-27, 01:33 PM
Yep, Lanky's first story.

Sad that one has to point out that there's more than one, really. Dude's got some serious bad luck. I want him in my game, I could use some excitement in my life :smalltongue:

erikun
2011-08-27, 02:24 PM
But those ARE some scary stories! Who'd be stupid enough to try and violate a goddess?!
I believe that one involved the players being half-starved, in single digit HP, and coming across the temple of some goddess. The people at the temple offered the party their aid and the goddess told them that they "should stay and rest."

The party apparently attacked everyone in the temple because "They didn't like being told what to do."

--

Back on topic, in a normal role-playing game, any resource you bring to a conflict would have the chance to of being consumed or destroyed. That's just how it is. If you bring a grenade, there is the chance that the grenade gets used, and you don't spontaneously get another once. If you drive a pickup truck to attack Fort Knox, there is a chance the truck will get shot at and destroyed, or that the police will read the license plate. If you use your contact, the mayor, to go into public debate against the local vampire tribe, then there is a very good chance the vampires will attack the mayor in response.

After all, this is typically a life-or-death encounter for the character. It doesn't make sense that the character's friends and clothing are mystically protected.

On the other hand, D&D has the odd situation of requiring equipment just to do anything. You need that +1 sword to hit anything, you need that spellbook to cast anything, you need that friendly deity to have any class abilities. As such, I kind of chalk D&D resources up along with HP resistance, skill ranks, and material components as things that we don't analyze too closely because I already know they don't make sense.

Seb Wiers
2011-08-27, 02:44 PM
the DM was issue (who tortures a PC?)

John Wick? Joss Whedon?

Traab
2011-08-27, 03:17 PM
I believe that one involved the players being half-starved, in single digit HP, and coming across the temple of some goddess. The people at the temple offered the party their aid and the goddess told them that they "should stay and rest."

The party apparently attacked everyone in the temple because "They didn't like being told what to do."


They were also incredibly rude and insulting to the goddess as she guided them to safety. I exaggerated the attempted rape part, but I believe they at least tried to sexually harass her or something. But yeah, they were given a free break, an oasis where they could safely rest and heal and even restock at, and because it was an npc making this offer, they decided to kill everything there, and burn the whole oasis down.

Starbuck_II
2011-08-27, 03:47 PM
Sad that one has to point out that there's more than one, really. Dude's got some serious bad luck. I want him in my game, I could use some excitement in my life :smalltongue:

I don't think you want that excitement; people get stabbed around him. (His girlfriend stabbed him over a D&D session)

While he sounds like he would be as fun player, I'd be wary... :smallbiggrin:

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 04:43 PM
After all, this is typically a life-or-death encounter for the character. It doesn't make sense that the character's friends and clothing are mystically protected.

It does, actually. You see, a player has limited resources at his disposal, and he's investing them in certain ways. I'm not talking about the character's resources, I'm talking about the player's. In D&D, those are skill points, class levels, feat slots, treasure (in a way), ability boosts and so on. In WoD, those are attribute points, merit points, skill points and the like. Most systems give the player resources they can spend to create their character. Unless you make up everything you remove from them (like, say, giving them a new ally of similar influence if you kill off the Mayor, or a new vehicle if their truck gets totalled), you're literally deleting their character sheet, one dot at a time. When you kill off the Hunter's 4-dot ally and offer no replacement, that's a part of the character sheet that is going to have to be erased. When you destroy a wizard's spellbook and you don't give him a chance to get her spells back, you're actually taking the player's resources into your hands and doing what you will with them.

This is okay if the players want this or don't mind, but the idea that it simply "makes no sense" otherwise is ludicrous. To me, it makes no sense that a DM would think it's ever okay to take control of a player's resources and do with them what he wants without asking first (or making it perfectly clear that he's going to do that, so that the player has a chance to say "No, thanks, this kind of game is not for me" and walk away).

SowZ
2011-08-27, 05:22 PM
It does, actually. You see, a player has limited resources at his disposal, and he's investing them in certain ways. I'm not talking about the character's resources, I'm talking about the player's. In D&D, those are skill points, class levels, feat slots, treasure (in a way), ability boosts and so on. In WoD, those are attribute points, merit points, skill points and the like. Most systems give the player resources they can spend to create their character. Unless you make up everything you remove from them (like, say, giving them a new ally of similar influence if you kill off the Mayor, or a new vehicle if their truck gets totalled), you're literally deleting their character sheet, one dot at a time. When you kill off the Hunter's 4-dot ally and offer no replacement, that's a part of the character sheet that is going to have to be erased. When you destroy a wizard's spellbook and you don't give him a chance to get her spells back, you're actually taking the player's resources into your hands and doing what you will with them.

This is okay if the players want this or don't mind, but the idea that it simply "makes no sense" otherwise is ludicrous. To me, it makes no sense that a DM would think it's ever okay to take control of a player's resources and do with them what he wants without asking first (or making it perfectly clear that he's going to do that, so that the player has a chance to say "No, thanks, this kind of game is not for me" and walk away).

Of course, a DM can balance it. It is fine for the DM to burn the spellbook but A. Make sure something happens in game that allows them to gain another spellbook. It may not be quite as good as the old one, but don't take away the players favorite spells. Same goes for swords and animal companions. B. Don't make them go too long waiting. C. If they have sufficiently potected their gear, don't get pissy that they avoided your conflict and ignore the rules to break it anyway.

As a DM, I wouldn't ask before destroying the stuff, (there is always risk,) but I would make it a temporary conflict. They may be lacking for the rest of the session, but I will have made up for it by the time a few more has gone by. That doesn't mean some interesting set backs can't crop up in the mean time.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 05:28 PM
Of course, a DM can balance it. It is fine for the DM to burn the spellbook but A. Make sure something happens in game that allows them to gain another spellbook. It may not be quite as good as the old one, but don't take away the players favorite spells. Same goes for swords and animal companions. B. Don't make them go too long waiting. C. If they have sufficiently potected their gear, don't get pissy that they avoided your conflict and ignore the rules to break it anyway.

As a DM, I wouldn't ask before destroying the stuff, (there is always risk,) but I would make it a temporary conflict. They may be lacking for the rest of the session, but I will have made up for it by the time a few more has gone by. That doesn't mean some interesting set backs can't crop up in the mean time.

Totally fine, so long as this sort of thing is spelled out before the game begins. There are plenty of people (like me, for instance) that wouldn't want to play in that kind of game, and I think it's only polite to let the players know beforehand, so that they can back out before it's too late.

WarKitty
2011-08-27, 05:37 PM
It does, actually. You see, a player has limited resources at his disposal, and he's investing them in certain ways. I'm not talking about the character's resources, I'm talking about the player's. In D&D, those are skill points, class levels, feat slots, treasure (in a way), ability boosts and so on. In WoD, those are attribute points, merit points, skill points and the like. Most systems give the player resources they can spend to create their character. Unless you make up everything you remove from them (like, say, giving them a new ally of similar influence if you kill off the Mayor, or a new vehicle if their truck gets totalled), you're literally deleting their character sheet, one dot at a time. When you kill off the Hunter's 4-dot ally and offer no replacement, that's a part of the character sheet that is going to have to be erased. When you destroy a wizard's spellbook and you don't give him a chance to get her spells back, you're actually taking the player's resources into your hands and doing what you will with them.

This is okay if the players want this or don't mind, but the idea that it simply "makes no sense" otherwise is ludicrous. To me, it makes no sense that a DM would think it's ever okay to take control of a player's resources and do with them what he wants without asking first (or making it perfectly clear that he's going to do that, so that the player has a chance to say "No, thanks, this kind of game is not for me" and walk away).

The issue for me is that it doesn't make sense in the game world for this stuff to be sacred. There's plenty of places where the most sensible thing for the opponents to do would be to target the PC's stuff. This is the problem with item-dependence in D&D - if your character relies on his spellbook, that's going to be the logical target for an enemy.

SowZ
2011-08-27, 05:38 PM
Totally fine, so long as this sort of thing is spelled out before the game begins. There are plenty of people (like me, for instance) that wouldn't want to play in that kind of game, and I think it's only polite to let the players know beforehand, so that they can back out before it's too late.

Yeah, the group I've played with for the past four years and some of the groups I've done short games for during that time know that I am not shy to kill of players, (my average is one every third session, though just about every time it has been in response to a choice made by the player that would result in death,) and damage their things if it is reasonable to do so.

My campaigns usually only go a couple months or so, though, before someone else DMs so people don't get burned out. If someone wants to play a different style of game, yeah, that's cool with me and I can play in them just fine. Or I can play in games with a 'meaner' way of running them. But I still don't hold by vindicitve DMing or killing/destroying players stuff not as a way to increase drama, risk, and story in general but as punishment to those players.


The issue for me is that it doesn't make sense in the game world for this stuff to be sacred. There's plenty of places where the most sensible thing for the opponents to do would be to target the PC's stuff. This is the problem with item-dependence in D&D - if your character relies on his spellbook, that's going to be the logical target for an enemy.

Yeah, and I am cool with that kind of stuff. But there are sensible ways around it for players that don't like it. Allow warding ones spellbook to be easy, give the players ancestral weapons with a crazy hardness value, etc.

erikun
2011-08-27, 06:03 PM
It does, actually. You see, a player has limited resources at his disposal, and he's investing them in certain ways. I'm not talking about the character's resources, I'm talking about the player's. In D&D, those are skill points, class levels, feat slots, treasure (in a way), ability boosts and so on. In WoD, those are attribute points, merit points, skill points and the like. Most systems give the player resources they can spend to create their character. Unless you make up everything you remove from them (like, say, giving them a new ally of similar influence if you kill off the Mayor, or a new vehicle if their truck gets totalled), you're literally deleting their character sheet, one dot at a time. When you kill off the Hunter's 4-dot ally and offer no replacement, that's a part of the character sheet that is going to have to be erased. When you destroy a wizard's spellbook and you don't give him a chance to get her spells back, you're actually taking the player's resources into your hands and doing what you will with them.

This is okay if the players want this or don't mind, but the idea that it simply "makes no sense" otherwise is ludicrous. To me, it makes no sense that a DM would think it's ever okay to take control of a player's resources and do with them what he wants without asking first (or making it perfectly clear that he's going to do that, so that the player has a chance to say "No, thanks, this kind of game is not for me" and walk away).
There's nothing wrong with replacing destroyed resources during the adventure. I think it leads to a bit of a different playstyle, but that doesn't make it better or worse.

On the other hand, the difference with Shadowrun/World of Darkness resources is that their use is optional. Yes, you can load up your car with explosives or take the mayor along with you on the next demon hunting run, and there would be a real risk of that vehicle or person not making it out in working order. (Whether they are replaced or not.) However, at all times it is the player's option to put those specific resources at risk. If they tell the mayor everything is okay and leave the car at home, and those resources are no longer in any danger; it's only when the character decides to pull out the resources in a dangerous situation that things become chancy.

D&D doesn't give the player that option. A fighter can't leave their sword at home and still fight as well; they need to bring their sword to every fight. Wizards need to use their spellbook every day. Cleric have to worry about their standing with their deity in just about every situation. The use of resources in this case is manditory by the system, which is why I consider it a different situation. Sure, you could still play the game with the usual risk of losing all your equipment, but for a game with a scripted amount of resources per challange level (you are assigned roughly X amount of treasure before level up, and don't have a choice in the matter) you run the risk of encountering a challange you simply cannot deal with because the system has not provided the party the necessary resources to do so.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 06:46 PM
The issue for me is that it doesn't make sense in the game world for this stuff to be sacred. There's plenty of places where the most sensible thing for the opponents to do would be to target the PC's stuff. This is the problem with item-dependence in D&D - if your character relies on his spellbook, that's going to be the logical target for an enemy.

And it's just as logical that the character will have the item sufficiently protected. Sure, the bad guys can target whatever they want, but whether they actually succeed on destroying it is up to the DM, since he's the one that can give his bad guys unlimited resources. The players' resources are limited, instead. If a DM wants to destroy something the players' possess, all he has to do is give his bad guys enough resources to get the job done. What makes sense inside the game is up to the players and the DM. Anything that is founded on something that makes sense in-game can be countered by something that also makes sense in-game. In this case, that the characters' stuff is adequately protected (as befits resources of such importance) and the baddies don't have the inclination, time or resources to overcome those protections.


Yeah, the group I've played with for the past four years and some of the groups I've done short games for during that time know that I am not shy to kill of players, (my average is one every third session, though just about every time it has been in response to a choice made by the player that would result in death,) and damage their things if it is reasonable to do so.

My campaigns usually only go a couple months or so, though, before someone else DMs so people don't get burned out. If someone wants to play a different style of game, yeah, that's cool with me and I can play in them just fine. Or I can play in games with a 'meaner' way of running them. But I still don't hold by vindicitve DMing or killing/destroying players stuff not as a way to increase drama, risk, and story in general but as punishment to those players.

And that's perfectly fine too. We all have different tastes. Just because I wouldn't stand for any of that doesn't mean it's wrong or anything. It's just another way to play. Some people like having complete control of the resources they are given on character creation (and later on) throughout the entire game. Others don't mind sacrificing that to increase risk, drama and all that.


There's nothing wrong with replacing destroyed resources during the adventure. I think it leads to a bit of a different playstyle, but that doesn't make it better or worse.

On the other hand, the difference with Shadowrun/World of Darkness resources is that their use is optional. Yes, you can load up your car with explosives or take the mayor along with you on the next demon hunting run, and there would be a real risk of that vehicle or person not making it out in working order. (Whether they are replaced or not.) However, at all times it is the player's option to put those specific resources at risk. If they tell the mayor everything is okay and leave the car at home, and those resources are no longer in any danger; it's only when the character decides to pull out the resources in a dangerous situation that things become chancy.

D&D doesn't give the player that option. A fighter can't leave their sword at home and still fight as well; they need to bring their sword to every fight. Wizards need to use their spellbook every day. Cleric have to worry about their standing with their deity in just about every situation. The use of resources in this case is manditory by the system, which is why I consider it a different situation. Sure, you could still play the game with the usual risk of losing all your equipment, but for a game with a scripted amount of resources per challange level (you are assigned roughly X amount of treasure before level up, and don't have a choice in the matter) you run the risk of encountering a challange you simply cannot deal with because the system has not provided the party the necessary resources to do so.

There is no difference, actually. What your argument hinges on (player choice) is an illusion. Players have resources in both types of games, and the DM has the option to remove them just as well. The "player choice" phenomenon you claim is purely fictional. A player has a resource (a spellbook in D&D and an ally in nWoD) and they use it whenever they can to improve their odds of resolving a conflict in their favour. A DM may target those resources and eliminate them. What you deem "player choice" is completely arbitrary.

A D&D character can choose to take a variant in Complete Arcane that turns their skin into their spellbook. Is not taking that variant a player choice that justifies eliminating that resource? A fighter-type can take levels in Kensai, which allows them to enchant their own weapon, and replace it if it gets destroyed. Is not doing that another player choice? Also, a swordsage can choose to specialise in unarmed combat and take Vow of Poverty, create a backstory that eliminates any loved ones that might be targetted and acquire the exact race/template combination that renders him immune to most effects in the game. Is not doing that an invitation to destroy his resources?

In nWoD, the difference between the Ally and the Contact merit is that the contact would never risk their life/position for the character, while the ally most certainly would. Eliminating a character's merit for using it as it was intended to be used is punishing the player for spending their merit points on that, rather than on things that are harder to eliminate, like Striking Looks or Combat Styles. And if the player relies too much on their looks or combat abilities, what comes next? Disfiguration? Memory wipe? After all, according to that arbitrary justification, it's the player's choice for using the merit as it was intended to be used, and therefore grounds for termination.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 06:55 PM
There is no difference, actually. What your argument hinges on (player choice) is an illusion. Players have resources in both types of games, and the DM has the option to remove them just as well. The "player choice" phenomenon you claim is purely fictional. A player has a resource (a spellbook in D&D and an ally in nWoD) and they use it whenever they can to improve their odds of resolving a conflict in their favour. A DM may target those resources and eliminate them. What you deem "player choice" is completely arbitrary.

I don't know about that. He makes a pretty good point that some games are a LOT more gear dependent than others. D&D is particularly awful in this regard, and 3.X might be the worst. There's a huge amount of difference between an extreme option or two that make a character less gear dependent (and VoP doesn't stack up well to gear in effectiveness), and a game like nWoD where there might be an option that need never be taken to become slightly dependent on "gear."

In a lot of RPGs you can effectively strip the PCs naked, drop them off somewhere, and have them scrounge around for items and make do quite well without their old gear. They might be just operating at 90% of capacity in most cases (though nearly 100% in others), but they don't get remotely neutered.

In D&D you just can't do that...unless everyone has been designed with that end-goal in mind and makes really unusual builds to facilitate it. Further, it is problematic balancing encounters for gearless PCs since gear scales offensive and defensive stats disproportionately, which means you can't just knock down the CR a little bit and have combat be smooth. Of course, some classes by default are totally neutered even further, such as the wizard.

This is hardly an illusion. Nor is it an unreasonable storyline, but it is a very difficult one to pull off in D&D.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 07:04 PM
I don't know about that. He makes a pretty good point that some games are a LOT more gear dependent than others. D&D is particularly awful in this regard, and 3.X might be the worst. There's a huge amount of difference between an extreme option or two that make a character less gear dependent (and VoP doesn't stack up well to gear in effectiveness), and a game like nWoD where there might be an option that need never be taken to become slightly dependent on "gear."

In a lot of RPGs you can effectively strip the PCs naked, drop them off somewhere, and have them scrounge around for items and make do quite well without their old gear. They might be just operating at 90% of capacity in most cases (though nearly 100% in others), but they don't get remotely neutered.

The term "gear" is what throws you off. You visualise physical items and think those are more "okay" to destroy than, say, a character's looks. That's the illusion. They're both resources a player has, that a DM may eliminate. It's true that D&D focuses more on physical items than nWoD, but that doesn't make a difference because both games are built on the exact same premise: a player is given resources to build their character before the game begins, those resources are allocated as the player desires and then they are used during the game to help resolve conflicts in their favour. Resources gained throughout the game are allocated and used in the same way.

And again, a DM may eliminate any of these resources with utter impunity if he or she so desires. Once again, the "illusion" here is assuming that the only resources a character has at their disposal are physical items, and they are bizarringly more "okay" to eliminate than the character's looks, knowledge, smarts, skills, allies or any other aspect of their character sheet.


In D&D you just can't do that...unless everyone has been designed with that end-goal in mind and makes really unusual builds to facilitate it. Further, it is problematic balancing encounters for gearless PCs since gear scales offensive and defensive stats disproportionately, which means you can't just knock down the CR a little bit and have combat be smooth. Of course, some classes by default are totally neutered even further, such as the wizard.

This is hardly an illusion.

Again, you are focusing on "gear" and missing the big picture. As a DM, I can just as easily take your Factotum or Psion (both classes recognised to be more or less just as effective with or without gear) and have an NPC cast Mindrape on them. Or Psychic Chirurgery. Or level-drain them with an Energy Draining monster with boosted DCs. Or I can throw an Intelligence-draining monster on them and make Restoration and the like unavailable. Any of this will eliminate the resources they rely upon.

It's all the same thing, which is why it's an illusion to focus on "gear."

jindra34
2011-08-27, 07:22 PM
Shadowknight: In a NWOD campaign do you expect the Storyteller to have enemies ignore your ally who is stabbing them simply because he is your ally? No matter what resources should not be stripped from a player simply because they can and neither should significant resources be lost off screen. But if it makes good sense for the enemies in the story to attack/destroy something they should regardless of that things relation to the PCs, and the PCs should have a chance to stop them.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 07:22 PM
Again, you are focusing on "gear" and missing the big picture. As a DM, I can just as easily take your Factotum or Psion (both classes recognised to be more or less just as effective with or without gear) and have an NPC cast Mindrape on them. Or Psychic Chirurgery. Or level-drain them with an Energy Draining monster with boosted DCs. Or I can throw an Intelligence-draining monster on them and make Restoration and the like unavailable. Any of this will eliminate the resources they rely upon.

You can pretend all you want this "difference" is an illusion. Of course the DM can "take" anything he wants, but that's not the point here.

Is tossing the players into a cell or exiling them without their normal gear fairly standard storytelling material? YES IT IS. Yet this isn't easy in D&D, because it attaches an immense amount of player power to their material items.

So this is a very easy problem for a DM to run into, and a lot of the time there aren't easy solutions that aren't a bit Deus Ex Machina. A DM that doesn't realize this can easily get some pissed off players that feel the game has become adversarial while the DM doesn't understand what went wrong.

From a narrative (or even simulationist) perspective, all player resources are decidedly NOT created equal. When a game ignores this, problems can ensue since narrative (and simulationism) is important in all RPGs. All your point is saying is that items in D&D are vitally important to character performance. This is of course true, but that really is only highlighting how this is a design problem with the game.


Shadowknight: In a NWOD campaign do you expect the Storyteller to have enemies ignore your ally who is stabbing them simply because he is your ally? No matter what resources should not be stripped from a player simply because they can and neither should significant resources be lost off screen. But if it makes good sense for the enemies in the story to attack/destroy something they should regardless of that things relation to the PCs, and the PCs should have a chance to stop them.

I have a question about this. If your ally dies, do all invested points or whatever become lost? Do you get to put them somewhere else? Do you get to acquire a new ally using those same points?

jindra34
2011-08-27, 07:26 PM
I have a question about this. If your ally dies, do all invested points or whatever become lost? Do you get to put them somewhere else? Do you get to acquire a new ally using those same points?

Depends on the system. I don't know about others but in GURPS an ally lost supporting you is gone, as opposed to one lost due to personality issues or other things. And in DnD allies gained through leadership are replaceable.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 07:28 PM
Depends on the system. I don't know about others but in GURPS an ally lost supporting you is gone, as opposed to one lost due to personality issues or other things. And in DnD allies gained through leadership are replaceable.

I meant in NWoD in particular.

A D&D like approach doesn't really permanently destroy anything (unlike item removal), so that's good design, imho. It is a temporary setback, which is fine.

Edit: Wait...you're avatar is some sort of Jedi Kitsune?

jindra34
2011-08-27, 07:32 PM
I meant in NWoD in particular.

A D&D like approach doesn't really permanently destroy anything (unlike item removal), so that's good design, imho. It is a temporary setback, which is fine.
I honestly don't know NWOD well enough to say. Was primarily using it because someone had already brought it up as an example.

Edit: Wait...you're avatar is some sort of Jedi Kitsune?
Exactly.

SowZ
2011-08-27, 07:35 PM
And it's just as logical that the character will have the item sufficiently protected. Sure, the bad guys can target whatever they want, but whether they actually succeed on destroying it is up to the DM, since he's the one that can give his bad guys unlimited resources. The players' resources are limited, instead. If a DM wants to destroy something the players' possess, all he has to do is give his bad guys enough resources to get the job done. What makes sense inside the game is up to the players and the DM. Anything that is founded on something that makes sense in-game can be countered by something that also makes sense in-game. In this case, that the characters' stuff is adequately protected (as befits resources of such importance) and the baddies don't have the inclination, time or resources to overcome those protections.



And that's perfectly fine too. We all have different tastes. Just because I wouldn't stand for any of that doesn't mean it's wrong or anything. It's just another way to play. Some people like having complete control of the resources they are given on character creation (and later on) throughout the entire game. Others don't mind sacrificing that to increase risk, drama and all that.



There is no difference, actually. What your argument hinges on (player choice) is an illusion. Players have resources in both types of games, and the DM has the option to remove them just as well. The "player choice" phenomenon you claim is purely fictional. A player has a resource (a spellbook in D&D and an ally in nWoD) and they use it whenever they can to improve their odds of resolving a conflict in their favour. A DM may target those resources and eliminate them. What you deem "player choice" is completely arbitrary.

A D&D character can choose to take a variant in Complete Arcane that turns their skin into their spellbook. Is not taking that variant a player choice that justifies eliminating that resource? A fighter-type can take levels in Kensai, which allows them to enchant their own weapon, and replace it if it gets destroyed. Is not doing that another player choice? Also, a swordsage can choose to specialise in unarmed combat and take Vow of Poverty, create a backstory that eliminates any loved ones that might be targetted and acquire the exact race/template combination that renders him immune to most effects in the game. Is not doing that an invitation to destroy his resources?

In nWoD, the difference between the Ally and the Contact merit is that the contact would never risk their life/position for the character, while the ally most certainly would. Eliminating a character's merit for using it as it was intended to be used is punishing the player for spending their merit points on that, rather than on things that are harder to eliminate, like Striking Looks or Combat Styles. And if the player relies too much on their looks or combat abilities, what comes next? Disfiguration? Memory wipe? After all, according to that arbitrary justification, it's the player's choice for using the merit as it was intended to be used, and therefore grounds for termination.

Similarly, WoD has an option for taking resources, which assumes they have an automatic monthly income. Something could happen that destroy's that income. Especially in a game like WoD, I think these kinds of things need to be options for the story to progress. The ally shouldn't be invincible. But the Storyteller targetting those uses of character points specifically, not reacting to player choices or following the natural plot progression, seems a little vindictive.

In D&D it is easy if a player loses an item. The DM can direct things so that the player obtains something of equal value that still fits the build. In WoD, if an ally dies, the easy fix is to allow give the player the merit in another way, (a new ally: an old friend of the PCs moved to town, an NPC who the player helped earlier has become very grateful, etc.) or let them re-allocate points. Players don't determine when they die or the results of their actions or the fate of gear and friends, they are at the Storyteller/GMs mercy. So I agree that he shouldn't handicap players indefinitely, but he also isn't restricted from moving the story in certain directions that require certain people to die.


I have a question about this. If your ally dies, do all invested points or whatever become lost? Do you get to put them somewhere else? Do you get to acquire a new ally using those same points?

WoD is a lot less mechanical than D&D and is generally less combat/balance focused. Creating powerful characters is secondary to the story more often than can be said for D&D. A side effect of the light rules is a lot of things aren't spelled out mechanically and the 'Storyteller,' (GM,) kind of has to wing it. It is also supposed to be gritty and scary and the game pretty much encourages a style where very little, (if anything,) is held sacred so players being slowed down/permanently damaged/faced with grave moral decisions/etc. is more common than in D&D.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 07:44 PM
In D&D it is easy if a player loses an item. The DM can direct things so that the player obtains something of equal value that still fits the build. In WoD, if an ally dies, the easy fix is to allow give the player the merit in another way, (a new ally: an old friend of the PCs moved to town, an NPC who the player helped earlier has become very grateful, etc.) or let them re-allocate points. Players don't determine when they die or the results of their actions or the fate of gear and friends, they are at the Storyteller/GMs mercy. So I agree that he shouldn't handicap players, but he also isn't restricted from moving the story in certain directions that require certain people to die.

Well, there's "easy" and "easy". A ton of normal and even optimized builds get heavily neutered if they lose their weapon, especially at higher levels. This is pretty messed up, imho. What's worse, if you are facing a guy that sunders weapons or disarms very easily, unarmed strikes are very annoying to do and often don't do much damage.

D&D has too much wrapped up in items and defaults to giving even high level characters too little power with no items or a broken weapon. Hmm, that reminds me that one of my house rules is usually that unarmed strikes don't provoke AoO (everyone gets the feat for free, essentially)...though that's only a drop in the bucket on item-dependency.


WoD is a lot less mechanical than D&D and is generally less combat/balance focused. Creating powerful characters is secondary to the story more often than can be said for D&D. A side effect of the light rules is a lot of things aren't spelled out mechanically and the 'Storyteller,' (GM,) kind of has to wing it. It is also supposed to be gritty and scary and the game pretty much encourages a style where very little, (if anything,) is held sacred so players being slowed down/permanently damaged/faced with grave moral decisions/etc. is more common than in D&D.

I've played the old WoD (Werewolf, Wraith, Mage), but I don't recall any permanent damage. I don't recall the rules on allies and the like there very well either. I mean, generally speaking, most of the stuff on your sheet stays there. Obviously there's a bit of a moral mechanic in the game with that 10-point track each character has (what it is depends on which game), but that isn't any sort of permanent damage issue typically unless a player really makes it one -- it's more of a struggle, which is different.

So I am not sure what you are getting at.

SowZ
2011-08-27, 07:53 PM
Well, there's "easy" and "easy". A ton of normal and even optimized builds get heavily neutered if they lose their weapon, especially at higher levels. This is pretty messed up, imho. What's worse, if you are facing a guy that sunders weapons or disarms very easily, unarmed strikes are very annoying to do and often don't do much damage.

D&D has too much wrapped up in items and defaults to giving even high level characters too little power with no items or a broken weapon. Hmm, that reminds me that one of my house rules is usually that unarmed strikes don't provoke AoO (everyone gets the feat for free, essentially)...though that's only a drop in the bucket on item-dependency.



I've played the old WoD (Werewolf, Wraith, Mage), but I don't recall any permanent damage. I don't recall the rules on allies and the like there very well either. I mean, generally speaking, most of the stuff on your sheet stays there. Obviously there's a bit of a moral mechanic in the game with that 10-point track each character has (what it is depends on which game), but that isn't any sort of permanent damage issue typically unless a player really makes it one -- it's more of a struggle, which is different.

So I am not sure what you are getting at.

I'm talking more like what kind of Storytelling the core books encourage and the kinds of example storylines you are given as opposed to D&D, not so much what the system allows. The core book doesn't explicitly talk about 'permanent stat damage' or anything because it is a lot less mechanical of a system.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 07:55 PM
I'm talking more like what kind of Storytelling the core books encourage and the kinds of example storylines you are given as opposed to D&D, not so much what the system allows. The core book doesn't explicitly talk about 'permanent stat damage' or anything because it is a lot less mechanical of a system.

It is mechanical enough to allow permanent damage to stats and skills. The rules don't allow it and I'd be pretty shocked if I got slapped with someone like that in a WoD game.

Are you saying this has been even remotely common in the games you have played? What stats, what skills?

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 08:02 PM
Shadowknight: In a NWOD campaign do you expect the Storyteller to have enemies ignore your ally who is stabbing them simply because he is your ally? No matter what resources should not be stripped from a player simply because they can and neither should significant resources be lost off screen. But if it makes good sense for the enemies in the story to attack/destroy something they should regardless of that things relation to the PCs, and the PCs should have a chance to stop them.

I already said in a previous post that attempting to remove a resource (or, in other words, threatening it) is not the same as actually removing it. What you are arguing is completely irrelevant because I never said what you're claiming I said. I already told WarKitty that "it's just as logical that the character will have the item sufficiently protected." If it makes sense that the item, ally or any other resource be threatened by enemies, it makes just as much sense for the characters to have it sufficiently protected. This isn't an in-game question. It's a purely OOC matter.


You can pretend all you want this "difference" is an illusion. Of course the DM can "take" anything he wants, but that's not the point here.

And you can pretend the illusion doesn't exist. That doesn't make it any less of an illusion. The fact that the DM can take anything he wants is exactly the point here. What you term "gear" is exactly the same as any other resource the character has at its disposal, and targetting it is exactly the same as targetting any other resource.


Is tossing the players into a cell or exiling them without their normal gear fairly standard storytelling material? YES IT IS. Yet this isn't easy in D&D, because it attaches an immense amount of player power to their material items.

Not really. You can just as easily refluff magical items into something else. Ring of Flight? You are blessed by the goddess of winds and birds. Magic sword? It's actually your own power. Any sword you pick up gains the powers you've purchased (Flaming, Icy Burst, etc). Spellbook? Refluff it as tattoos on your skin. Scrolls? Refluff it as calling the aid of a faerie to perform a specific task (casting the spell you'd want).

It. Is. An. Illusion.

What you term "gear" is just a resource that merely happens to come in the shape of an item. You CAN play an item-less D&D game by following the rules as written and merely pretend the items have other forms (like blessings or talents). Or you can let the players have the items' effects while still removing them from their possessions for story reasons, to preserve mechanical balance.

If D&D places too much emphasis on items and that is an obstacle in the story you want to tell, you make changes, which is what happens when anything else becomes an obstacel in the story you want to tell. We all have our houserules and homebrews, our refluffs and fixes.


So this is a very easy problem for a DM to run into, and a lot of the time there aren't easy solutions that aren't a bit Deus Ex Machina. A DM that doesn't realize this can easily get some pissed off players that feel the game has become adversarial while the DM doesn't understand what went wrong.

Exactly. The reason the players get pissed off is because the DM doesn't understand that he's taking away their resources. Like I said before, anything that has an in-game or story reason can be resolved in-game without touching mechanics in the slightest. If the players have to be stripped naked, you can make the necessary adjustments so that their resources (what the items do for them) remain untouched while the story carries on with them completely naked.


From a narrative (or even simulationist) perspective, all player resources are decidedly NOT created equal. When a game ignores this, problems can ensue since narrative (and simulationism) is important in all RPGs. All your point is saying is that items in D&D are vitally important to character performance. This is of course true, but that really is only highlighting how this is a design problem with the game.

That's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that you miss the big picture by focusing on physical items when they are no different than a character's skill points, class levels, spell slots, ability scores and so on.


I have a question about this. If your ally dies, do all invested points or whatever become lost? Do you get to put them somewhere else? Do you get to acquire a new ally using those same points?

By default, you erase those points from your character sheet. It's completely up to the Storyteller wheter you get the points' worth in XP, the points themselves, a replacement or any other sort of compensation. RAW would indicate that the ST is not obliged in the slightest to compensate for killing your Ally, Contact or making you lose your Resources merit. Which is why I pointed out that you're simply punishing the player for investing on merits that the ST feels are more "okay" to take away, rather than things like Eidetic Memory or Unseen Sense.


Similarly, WoD has an option for taking resources, which assumes they have an automatic monthly income. Something could happen that destroy's that income. Especially in a game like WoD, I think these kinds of things need to be options for the story to progress.

You are wrong, simply because you used the words "need to." If you had used the word "could" or "might," you'd have been completely right.


The ally shouldn't be invincible. But the Storyteller targetting those uses of character points specifically, not reacting to player choices or following the natural plot progression, seems a little vindictive.

Again, you're wrong simply because you used the word "shouldn't." If you had used the word "might not" or "doesn't have to be," I'd have agreed.

Also, you fall into the illusion trap again. What is a "natural plot progression" is completely arbitrary. It's DM whim presented in a way that seems plausible.

If a baddie can target an ally, why couldn't the ally survive the attempt by sheer luck, cleverness, timely intervention, adequate preparation, foresight, anticipation or any other reason? Why must "it makes sense for the ally to be threatened" to automatically mean "it makes sense for this resource to be eliminated now"? That's where the illusion lies. Any in-game justification for eliminating a resource can be countered by an in-game justification for that resource to be saved and preserved.


In D&D it is easy if a player loses an item. The DM can direct things so that the player obtains something of equal value that still fits the build. In WoD, if an ally dies, the easy fix is to allow give the player the merit in another way, (a new ally: an old friend of the PCs moved to town, an NPC who the player helped earlier has become very grateful, etc.) or let them re-allocate points. Players don't determine when they die or the results of their actions or the fate of gear and friends, they are at the Storyteller/GMs mercy. So I agree that he shouldn't handicap players indefinitely, but he also isn't restricted from moving the story in certain directions that require certain people to die.

You are completely wrong, and again, because you speak in categorical, absolute ways. You assume that we all play (or should play) WoD in the same way. That is your mistake. I will have you know that other people have different playstyles and they do not, in fact, leave the fate of their own deaths, gear, friends or any other resource in the hands of the GM. Why? Because they don't like playing that way. They prefer to be in control of the fate of their own character. I would recommend you that you considered that other people think differently and that there are different ways of playing that run counter to what you do. And that they are all just as equally valid.

Also, you are saying, again "moving the story in certain directions that require certain people to die." That is utterly wrong. There is no story that requires anyone to die, with no other option to achieve the same effect. Even given the most convoluted, air-tight plot, there's always a hole in the loop. There's always a way you could have taken the story in the same direction and ended in the same place without actually touching the characters' resources.


WoD is a lot less mechanical than D&D and is generally less combat/balance focused. Creating powerful characters is secondary to the story more often than can be said for D&D. A side effect of the light rules is a lot of things aren't spelled out mechanically and the 'Storyteller,' (GM,) kind of has to wing it. It is also supposed to be gritty and scary and the game pretty much encourages a style where very little, (if anything,) is held sacred so players being slowed down/permanently damaged/faced with grave moral decisions/etc. is more common than in D&D.

That can be summed up by the phrase "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

You can assume I disagree with all the strength I can muster, mainly because you're making blanket statements about what any RPG "is supposed to be" and implying that any deviations from your perceptions do not conform to what the game "is supposed to be." I'd be offended, but I encounter that attitude far too often.

The Glyphstone
2011-08-27, 08:04 PM
You are wrong, simply because you used the words "need to." If you had used the word "could" or "might," you'd have been completely right.


Why does 'need to be an option' have to be synonymous with 'must be done'? Nothing forces you to exercise that option, but if it's not an option, then it's irrelevant.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 08:10 PM
Why does 'need to be an option' have to be synonymous with 'must be done'? Nothing forces you to exercise that option, but if it's not an option, then it's irrelevant.

Because "needs to be an option" implies that every ST in every game, whether the players like it or not, must seriously consider such a course of action as a valid option. It's like telling the players that "actively avoiding the GM's plots, killing off his NPCs, sabotaging all of his attempts and doing all the things you know annoy him" also needs to be an option (only for the players). That, again, tells you that every player in every game must keep that in mind at all times as a serious option to consider.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 08:15 PM
Not really. You can just as easily refluff magical items into something else. Ring of Flight? You are blessed by the goddess of winds and birds. Magic sword? It's actually your own power. Any sword you pick up gains the powers you've purchased (Flaming, Icy Burst, etc). Spellbook? Refluff it as tattoos on your skin. Scrolls? Refluff it as calling the aid of a faerie to perform a specific task (casting the spell you'd want).

It. Is. An. Illusion.

Except such refluffs are an extremely tangible difference akin to making such powers class abilities/templates/whatever and as such would be treated quite different by both player and DM. Game mechanics also treat them quite different since they can't be grabbed, sundered, disarmed, stolen, etc (sort of perhaps MDJ, which is a horribly broken nuclear spell that no sane DM or player should use). You'd have to make alternate rules to even allow that.

Hardly an illusion.


That's not what I'm arguing. What I'm arguing is that you miss the big picture by focusing on physical items when they are no different than a character's skill points, class levels, spell slots, ability scores and so on.

Except they are different in terms of story, how they interact with the environment and others, etc. They are just as vital as any other player resource, mind you, but how the game treats them is decidedly different. How they fit into the story is decidedly different. How they fit into the simulation of the game world is decidedly different.

I don't think anyone is arguing against your point that casually destroying/removing them really screws things up in D&D. The problem is that D&D doesn't really consider this a major problem when it is one. It's a major flaw in how it is designed and like all major flaws it is something DMs ideally should be aware of and work around. Gear dependency is a problem with the game, because gear resources ARE quite different from more inherent resources. They are different in a mechanic sense, different in a narrative sense, and different in a sense of simulationism.

jindra34
2011-08-27, 08:16 PM
Because "needs to be an option" implies that every ST in every game, whether the players like it or not, must seriously consider such a course of action as a valid option. It's like telling the players that "actively avoiding the GM's plots, killing off his NPCs, sabotaging all of his attempts and doing all the things you know annoy him" also needs to be an option (only for the players). That, again, tells you that every player in every game must keep that in mind at all times as a serious option to consider.

Now your arguing based on bad grammar. A GM directs the plot by picking options that make sense for where you are going with the plot. If that doesn't include killing associated NPCs then you don't have to consider them, but just because most plots don't include an option does not mean that option is unavailable.

EDIT:What do you mean sufficiently protected? Do you mean afforded the same protections as a PC? The capabilities and defenses they would logically have (a.k.a. no martial arts master college reporters)? or do you mean not to let any long term harm come to them?

Provengreil
2011-08-27, 08:49 PM
Not really. You can just as easily refluff magical items into something else. Ring of Flight? You are blessed by the goddess of winds and birds. Magic sword? It's actually your own power. Any sword you pick up gains the powers you've purchased (Flaming, Icy Burst, etc). Spellbook? Refluff it as tattoos on your skin. Scrolls? Refluff it as calling the aid of a faerie to perform a specific task (casting the spell you'd want).

It. Is. An. Illusion.


this is where you lost me. as Drachasor has pointed out, these would be massively mechanical changes. we define this "gear" the way we do because unlike, say, a feat, it can be stolen, sundered, disarmed, or otherwise tampered with. you just don't quite seem to get that "gear" does, in fact, mean physical tools to help with your job. is D&D overly reliant on them? oh yeah. but that's not the argument here.

also, I have to disagree with your assessment of resources in general. you seem to be against the idea of ever losing resources, ever. ring stolen? ok, but can I still have its powers? really? or maybe an ally dies? he shouldn't have, you need to refluff so it didn't happen but has the effect of it happening on story direction. Butch and Sundance were gunned down, Goose died in a training accident, Jack Dawson drowned, Benjamin Martin lost his sons, Snape killed Dumbledore, Guilty Spark got Sergeant Johnson, Aeris died.
He's dead, Jim.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 09:12 PM
Except such refluffs are an extremely tangible difference akin to making such powers class abilities/templates/whatever and as such would be treated quite different by both player and DM. Game mechanics also treat them quite different since they can't be grabbed, sundered, disarmed, stolen, etc (sort of perhaps MDJ, which is a horribly broken nuclear spell that no sane DM or player should use). You'd have to make alternate rules to even allow that.

Hardly an illusion.

Funny how you say some things are sacred and then say that something else is something "no sane DM or player should every use" in the same paragraph. Almost verging on the hypocritical.

You don't need to make alternate rules. You keep the rules as they are and refluff. Someone tries to sunder your ring of flight? They sever your connection to the goddess of wind instead. Someone steals your scroll? They steal one use of your ability to call the fae. And so on.

This is, of course, in the extreme case that you MUST strip the characters completely from items and the story hinges on you continuing to do so. The vast majority of stories don't necessitate this. This is a hedge case that must be given special treatment, just like a story where all the magic in the setting has disappeared. A player that wants to play a wizard has to refluff it to something else if he wishes to keep the same mechanics. If you want to play hedge cases, you have to ready to make the necessary adjustments, just like wanting to run nWoD in the past or the future. Some skills will need to be changed.


Except they are different in terms of story, how they interact with the environment and others, etc. They are just as vital as any other player resource, mind you, but how the game treats them is decidedly different. How they fit into the story is decidedly different. How they fit into the simulation of the game world is decidedly different.

Only if you make them so. You say that they are different, and if you want to run your games like that, it's fine. But that's not the way it HAS to be (after all, a magical item is merely a permanent or expendable mechanical bonus or effect that costs gold and occupies an arbitary slot that a splatbook allows you to change or combine). And even if we do run games your way, it still doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be targetted "because it makes sense." Again, any in-game reason you can come up with can be countered by an equally valid in-game reason to prevent it.


I don't think anyone is arguing against your point that casually destroying/removing them really screws things up in D&D. The problem is that D&D doesn't really consider this a major problem when it is one. It's a major flaw in how it is designed and like all major flaws it is something DMs ideally should be aware of and work around. Gear dependency is a problem with the game, because gear resources ARE quite different from more inherent resources. They are different in a mechanic sense, different in a narrative sense, and different in a sense of simulationism.

You're right, but it still doesn't matter. Just because they are different in nature to other resources doesn't make it any more "okay" to remove than any other resource the player has.


Now your arguing based on bad grammar. A GM directs the plot by picking options that make sense for where you are going with the plot. If that doesn't include killing associated NPCs then you don't have to consider them, but just because most plots don't include an option does not mean that option is unavailable.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it's okay for the option to exist for those who like it, but I am against the notion that such an option MUST exist in every game ever.


this is where you lost me. as Drachasor has pointed out, these would be massively mechanical changes. we define this "gear" the way we do because unlike, say, a feat, it can be stolen, sundered, disarmed, or otherwise tampered with. you just don't quite seem to get that "gear" does, in fact, mean physical tools to help with your job. is D&D overly reliant on them? oh yeah. but that's not the argument here.

Read above. It doesn't carry any mechanical changes unless that's what you want. You can play an item-less game by pure refluffing, leaving mechanics intact. It necessitates, of course, that you keep on refluffing in a consistent matter. Stealing, sundering, disarming, tampered with, you refluff all these things so that they are coherent with the refluffing you've made.

And I agree that's not the argument here. I'm merely pointing out that gear is no more "okay" to remove than any other resource the character has at his or her disposal.


also, I have to disagree with your assessment of resources in general. you seem to be against the idea of ever losing resources, ever. ring stolen? ok, but can I still have its powers? really? or maybe an ally dies? he shouldn't have, you need to refluff so it didn't happen but has the effect of it happening on story direction. Butch and Sundance were gunned down, Goose died in a training accident, Jack Dawson drowned, Benjamin Martin lost his sons, Snape killed Dumbledore, Guilty Spark got Sergeant Johnson, Aeris died.
He's dead, Jim.

Cute.

Like I said before, in no story is it ever necessary that anything happens. Nothing, in a story, is every truly necessary. There are always multiple ways to achieve the same goals in a narrative.

But it's roughly the fourth time I've repeated myself in this thread, so perhaps I should admit I'm wasting my time here.

jindra34
2011-08-27, 09:17 PM
Just so I'm clear, Shadowknight12 you consider everything that a player has put any active effort to acquire a resource, and that resources should not be removed except under the most extreme situations in a story? Just want to make sure we are all on the same page.

Provengreil
2011-08-27, 09:18 PM
If i'm reading his posts right, not even then, apparently.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 09:23 PM
Just so I'm clear, Shadowknight12 you consider everything that a player has put any active effort to acquire a resource, and that resources should not be removed except under the most extreme situations in a story? Just want to make sure we are all on the same page.

Not, of course not. A player's resources are explicitly defined within the rules of the game and they vary from system to system. What is a resource in nWoD (an ally) is not so in D&D.

As a rough guideline, everything written on a character sheet that has a mechanical effect is a resource. In D&D, your allies aren't located in your character sheet, so they're not your resources. In nWoD, you have an Ally merit that exists in your character sheet.

And secondly, no, I don't think that's the way it "should" be. I don't think that any way "should" be. I fully respect the way you people play, even though I wouldn't play in such a game. What I'm saying is that the notion that some resources are more "okay" to remove than others is an illusion.

If you want to remove a player's resources, go ahead and do it. Play however you want to play.

Just own up to it.

jindra34
2011-08-27, 09:27 PM
Not, of course not. A player's resources are explicitly defined within the rules of the game and they vary from system to system. What is a resource in nWoD (an ally) is not so in D&D.

As a rough guideline, everything written on a character sheet that has a mechanical effect is a resource. In D&D, your allies aren't located in your character sheet, so they're not your resources. In nWoD, you have an Ally merit that exists in your character sheet.

And secondly, no, I don't think that's the way it "should" be. I don't think that any way "should" be. I fully respect the way you people play, even though I wouldn't play in such a game. What I'm saying is that the notion that some resources are more "okay" to remove than others is an illusion.

If you want to remove a player's resources, go ahead and do it. Play however you want to play.

Just own up to it.

Wow. Maybe you should have made it clearer from the start, because most of us were arguing over whether resources should be removed at all. And as stated by Provengreil you seemed to be rather stern in that resources should not be removed.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 09:29 PM
Wow. Maybe you should have made it clearer from the start, because most of us were arguing over whether resources should be removed at all. And as stated by Provengreil you seemed to be rather stern in that resources should not be removed.

I thought I did just that, in fact. Several times over.

My two main arguments were the ones outlined above: the fallacy of assuming some resources are more "okay" to remove than others; and secondarily, that games "should" be played in certain way (e.g., saying that resource-removal in WoD is good because that's the way it should be played). That's a fallacious argument, because it presupposes that there's indeed a way the game should be played.

jindra34
2011-08-27, 09:35 PM
I thought I did just that, in fact. Several times over.

My two main arguments were the ones outlined above: the fallacy of assuming some resources are more "okay" to remove than others; and secondarily, that games "should" be played in certain way (e.g., saying that resource-removal in WoD is good because that's the way it should be played). That's a fallacious argument, because it presupposes that there's indeed a way the game should be played.

Its kind of hard to make out anything other than 'I disagree' when you respond to a sentence or two with paragraphs. And everyone pretty much stated the decision was based on story not system, WoD was simply used as an example because it is a much darker and realistic setting than DnD and most people can recognize it on some level.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 09:40 PM
Its kind of hard to make out anything other than 'I disagree' when you respond to a sentence or two with paragraphs. And everyone pretty much stated the decision was based on story not system, WoD was simply used as an example because it is a much darker and realistic setting than DnD and most people can recognize it on some level.

I think this is roughly the fifth time that I repeat that any story reason for removing a resource can be countered with a story reason not to remove the resource. Justifying the elimination of a resource on the story is utterly unfounded because no story necessitates such a thing. The elimination of a resource is a purely OOC matter. Trying to disguise it by using the flimsy excuse of a story justification is rather laughable, as if the person in question was seriously expecting the listener not to see right through the deception.

If someone truly believes that a story has to advance through the elimination of a player's resource, that's a matter of laziness, stubbornness or a severe lack of creativity and imagination.

jindra34
2011-08-27, 09:52 PM
I think this is roughly the fifth time that I repeat that any story reason for removing a resource can be countered with a story reason not to remove the resource. Justifying the elimination of a resource on the story is utterly unfounded because no story necessitates such a thing. The elimination of a resource is a purely OOC matter. Trying to disguise it by using the flimsy excuse of a story justification is rather laughable, as if the person in question was seriously expecting the listener not to see right through the deception.

If someone truly believes that a story has to advance through the elimination of a player's resource, that's a matter of laziness, stubbornness or a severe lack of creativity and imagination.

I never said to advance the story. If you piss of a gang and make an impression that they can't take you directly what do you think they would do, attack your friends and associates, blow up your home, workplace or car, or just sit around waiting. Sometimes keeping the story realistic and preserving verisimilitude will have negative impact on the characters. That is how the world works.

Provengreil
2011-08-27, 09:55 PM
I think this is roughly the fifth time that I repeat that any story reason for removing a resource can be countered with a story reason not to remove the resource. Justifying the elimination of a resource on the story is utterly unfounded because no story necessitates such a thing. The elimination of a resource is a purely OOC matter. Trying to disguise it by using the flimsy excuse of a story justification is rather laughable, as if the person in question was seriously expecting the listener not to see right through the deception.

If someone truly believes that a story has to advance through the elimination of a player's resource, that's a matter of laziness, stubbornness or a severe lack of creativity and imagination.

I think you may have hit a more fundamental disagreement than you think here, because sometimes characters, intelligent items, or other tools are made just to create a sense of drama, tension, or something else when they are lost in a permanent fashion. to use the lord of the rings as an example, a ring of invisibility is great. when it turns out you can't use the ring of invisibility for various reasons involving undead(?) kings, madness, the end of the world, and a weird color scheme, the resource is effectively lost but the story progresses.

and no, not all stories require the weakening of a character through resource loss. but the enemy doesn't always fight fair, and sometimes what fails to kill you leaves you battered, bleeding, and weak. the struggle through such a hard time can make a great story.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 09:56 PM
I never said to advance the story. If you piss of a gang and make an impression that they can't take you directly what do you think they would do, attack your friends and associates, blow up your home, workplace or car, or just sit around waiting. Sometimes keeping the story realistic and preserving verisimilitude will have negative impact on the characters. That is how the world works.

It seems you still don't quite see it.

"Keeping the story realistic" and "preserving verisimilitude" are all subjective, and therefore arbitrary. Why is it realistic that the gang kills your friends and associates, and not that they try to kill them, but fail for some reason? The characters intervening, the police showing up on time to save them, friends and associates foreseeing this revenge and taking appropriate precautions, so on and so forth.

Are you convinced now that any story reason you can possibly come up with, in order to justify the removal of a resource, can be just as easily countered with another story reason?

EDIT:


I think you may have hit a more fundamental disagreement than you think here, because sometimes characters, intelligent items, or other tools are made just to create a sense of drama, tension, or something else when they are lost in a permanent fashion. to use the lord of the rings as an example, a ring of invisibility is great. when it turns out you can't use the ring of invisibility for various reasons involving undead(?) kings, madness, the end of the world, and a weird color scheme, the resource is effectively lost but the story progresses.

and no, not all stories require the weakening of a character through resource loss. but the enemy doesn't always fight fair, and sometimes what fails to kill you leaves you battered, bleeding, and weak. the struggle through such a hard time can make a great story.

In my personal opinion, a GM has no right to deem a player resource something expendable for the sake of the story or any other reason. That's not their call to make. It should be something that the player and the DM agree upon. Again, if that's the way the DM plays, that's perfectly fine, but you have to understand that that's an OOC reason, not a story reason. The DM is saying "I need to create drama/tension/etc in my story. How do I do it? I know! I sacrifice one of the player's resources!"

That is a 100% OOC justification, since the story can go a million different ways and the DM is purposefully choosing the one that involves the player losing a resource.

It doesn't matter if you think such a thing is "great" or not. I never said that player resource loss couldn't be used to tell a good story. I merely said that A) No player resource is more "okay" to sacrifice than another, and B) The reason to remove a player resource is always OOC, because any story justification can be countered with another story justification, and because a story never needs the removal of such a resource.

And for some people, no amount of "great story" justifies the removal.

jindra34
2011-08-27, 10:07 PM
It seems you still don't quite see it.

"Keeping the story realistic" and "preserving verisimilitude" are all subjective, and therefore arbitrary. Why is it realistic that the gang kills your friends and associates, and not that they try to kill them, but fail for some reason? The characters intervening, the police showing up on time to save them, friends and associates foreseeing this revenge and taking appropriate precautions, so on and so forth.

Are you convinced now that any story reason you can possibly come up with, in order to justify the removal of a resource, can be just as easily countered with another story reason?

True but only one of those leaves the story element and incentive for players in place. And the one that does (PC intervention) would likely be my goal in this example. Finally thank you for answering what you meant by 'sufficiently protected' earlier in the thread.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 10:16 PM
True but only one of those leaves the story element and incentive for players in place. And the one that does (PC intervention) would likely be my goal in this example. Finally thank you for answering what you meant by 'sufficiently protected' earlier in the thread.

I have no idea what you mean by "story element" (I find that to be an empty term, in this case, devoid of meaning, since everything that happened WAS part of the story), but the "incentive for players" is something that changes according to the player. If you had me as a player, for example, you'd have my complete attention, focus and a substantial incentive if you merely threatened the resource (say, by having the gang show up at my character's ally's place and the ally narrowingly escaping with his life) and my utter disgust and complete absence of motivation, interest and incentive if you actually removed the resource. You can't presume to know exactly what will give players "incentive" because they tend to be a rather diverse bunch.

As for the other part, no problem, I'll be glad to provide as many examples as it takes to get my point across.

Provengreil
2011-08-27, 10:19 PM
In my personal opinion, a GM has no right to deem a player resource something expendable for the sake of the story or any other reason. That's not their call to make. It should be something that the player and the DM agree upon. Again, if that's the way the DM plays, that's perfectly fine, but you have to understand that that's an OOC reason, not a story reason. The DM is saying "I need to create drama/tension/etc in my story. How do I do it? I know! I sacrifice one of the player's resources!"

That is a 100% OOC justification, since the story can go a million different ways and the DM is purposefully choosing the one that involves the player losing a resource.

It doesn't matter if you think such a thing is "great" or not. I never said that player resource loss couldn't be used to tell a good story. I merely said that A) No player resource is more "okay" to sacrifice than another, and B) The reason to remove a player resource is always OOC, because any story justification can be countered with another story justification, and because a story never needs the removal of such a resource.

And for some people, no amount of "great story" justifies the removal.

Sacrificing a resource is a way to add tension, and there are reasons to do it. here's one: When nothing bad ever happens to the hero or those he cares for, it's boring. he rises, he'll win, he'll overcome. or he'll fail and the story ends. Two outcomes. happily ever after, or death. If nothing precious, nothing close, nothing less nor more than the character's life is at stake, that's really all you get. But sometimes, the ending isn't always so clean. the haggard war vet with a bad leg, the shining warrior who returned triumphant to find his house was overrun in the invasion, these stories cannot be told without the loss of exactly that which you say is unacceptable to lose. Sometimes, there is pain without death.

So if you are among the "some people" mentioned in your post, follow your advice and cop to it. I'm all for having items damaged, diseases inflicted, bloodied, injuries, and what have you, so long as the game remains fun. And if I discuss it beforehand, it's not the same. A fight where winner takes all and doesn't get hurt breaks my suspension of disbelief.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-27, 10:29 PM
But what if the problem removes your ability to fight completely, like when monsters burn the wizard's spellbook? Suddenly the wizard has no way of fighting back against enemies, because they relied on their spells, which are gone now. Unless there was some way to resolve this problem before the session ended (finding a blank spellbook or stealing a bad guy's or something), I'd be pretty upset because I'd be spending the rest of the session just being useless. Can't really have drama if I can't contribute, can I?

erikun
2011-08-27, 10:30 PM
And secondly, no, I don't think that's the way it "should" be. I don't think that any way "should" be. I fully respect the way you people play, even though I wouldn't play in such a game. What I'm saying is that the notion that some resources are more "okay" to remove than others is an illusion.

If you want to remove a player's resources, go ahead and do it. Play however you want to play.

Just own up to it.
A choice is a decision the player has between multiple options that have different outcomes. The illusion of choice is a decision that seems to be a choice, but actually only has one outcome. "Choices" like two options that lead to the same outcome, options were all but one lead back to the beginning, and options where one is clearly better than the others are illusions, not choices.

Neither playstyle is better than the other. Indeed, some people prefer one playstyle over the other. People who enjoy a character-involved plot can prefer the illusion of choice to ensure their enjoyment of the game. People who want a challange can prefer choices with the possibility of failure. It depends, largely, on what the people at the table want.

Choices can have positive or negative consequences on the character. In a lot of systems, a comparison between a sword vs a fist indicates that the sword is better. It can cut far better than a fist, and generally deals more damage to an opponent. The tradeoff, though, is that the sword can be taken away, while a fist cannot. Or rather, that while a fist can be taken away - the character's arm could be chopped off - in most situations where a sword is removed, a character's fist is not.

This becomes a choice. The character may choose to invest in their fists, rather secure that most situations where their physical belongings are taken away from them, they will retain their fists. The character may also choose to invest in a sword, getting a more reliable weapon but with an increased risk of the weapon being removed from their possession. This is only a choice because both options have positive and negative consequences. If the player had no chance of losing their sword, through whatever mechanics, then there is no longer a choice; the sword is always superior.

The possibility of losing a resource is part of the choice. Calling giving the player the choice "flimsy" or "laughable" or "an illusion" is incorrect. It is a perfectly valid playstyle. It is presenting the player with a set of differing options, and I'm not sure why that has been presented as a bad thing throughout this thread.

Provengreil
2011-08-27, 10:35 PM
But what if the problem removes your ability to fight completely, like when monsters burn the wizard's spellbook? Suddenly the wizard has no way of fighting back against enemies, because they relied on their spells, which are gone now. Unless there was some way to resolve this problem before the session ended (finding a blank spellbook or stealing a bad guy's or something), I'd be pretty upset because I'd be spending the rest of the session just being useless. Can't really have drama if I can't contribute, can I?

hence the bit about the game remaining fun. that's not so much damaging or hindering the PCs as it is removing one of them without killing them.

erikun
2011-08-27, 10:38 PM
But what if the problem removes your ability to fight completely, like when monsters burn the wizard's spellbook? Suddenly the wizard has no way of fighting back against enemies, because they relied on their spells, which are gone now.
My original point was that, in the context of the above, D&D forces players to take losable resources. They don't have an option otherwise, outside a few remarkably subpar choices (Monk, Soulknife, Vow of Poverty).

This actually puts the DM in a very troubling situation - do they treat the losable resource as losable, potentially destroying a character's abilities, or do they treat the resource as nonlosable, keeping the item in the character's possession regardless of any in-game reasoning against the act?

This is also why I mentioned other games being better in this regard, as not only are the losable resources not manditory, but a character is not forced to bring every resource to the fight. (A large number of D&D games have the character carry around every potentially useful resource at all times.)

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 10:43 PM
I think this is roughly the fifth time that I repeat that any story reason for removing a resource can be countered with a story reason not to remove the resource. Justifying the elimination of a resource on the story is utterly unfounded because no story necessitates such a thing. The elimination of a resource is a purely OOC matter. Trying to disguise it by using the flimsy excuse of a story justification is rather laughable, as if the person in question was seriously expecting the listener not to see right through the deception.

That's not really true. Some kinds of stories are impossible if you don't allow item removal. These are VERY common stories, especially in fantasy (unlike crippling, mutilating, and mind-raping players).

You know, I think this whole conversation is being blown completely out of proportion by you. As far as items go, I think we all acknowledge how item-dependent D&D is. I don't think anyone disagrees with that or the importance of players having their items.

This dependence, however, can make things difficult if the DM wants to do a fairly typical sort of fantasy story that involves characters losing their stuff. The players become absolutely crippled by that. No one is saying this is a good thing or that a DM should go around doing this in D&D (at least not without careful planning), I don't believe. The point is that this is a design problem with D&D, because the gear dependence of the game makes things difficult.

And yes, as far as player power goes a +1 sword is the same as +1 bonus to hit and damage with swords held and such and such hand (generally speaking). As far as game mechanics go though, it IS different. This is part of the D&D game inherently. There are rules for sundering or disarming one and not the other. There are rules for taking one and not the other. The game treats them differently and that's a fact.* Not a problem in itself, per se, but it is a problem when it is combined with the extreme gear dependence in the game.

I'm talking about things on the level of GAME DESIGN. What is good, what isn't, what sorts of design can lead to problems. If I was going to make a more ideal system that's like D&D, I'd tone down gear dependence tremendously. If I was using, say, a game system where how you spent points in self-power, allies, etc, was important, I'd design a way to compensate players a bit when allies are lost and have them replaceable in time. I might use a system where you get something like extra Force/Fate/Whatever Points where the lost of a resource negatively impacted you. Or I might make it so that the temporary loss of such a resource just couldn't cripple a player and limit how much any player could be crippled** -- without DM fiat and special notes to the DM on handling such a potentially delicate character. Both would be more friendly for a wider variety of stories, while still allowing loss to be felt.

Anyhow, I'm trying to talk about this sort of thing, and how bad design can lead to problems. You're acting like I'm somehow advocating DMs in D&D games destroy player gear left and right and other things like that. I'm explicitly saying that's a bad thing in D&D. However, the rules quite clearly make this extremely easy to do. It's even very effective and smart for villains to do this. So tell me, do you think this isn't a design problem with the game?

*I mean, heck, just compare it to an animal companion. That is replaceable with a little bit of work. A magical item is a whole different story. THE GAME TREATS DIFFERENT RESOURCES DIFFERENTLY, EVEN IF THEY GIVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER TO THE PLAYER.

**Like only a certain amount of resources could be placed in losable stuff.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-27, 10:44 PM
I mean, in a PbP here on these very forums, the GM just arbitrarily destroyed my character's sword, but I was okay with it because:

1) It turned out that the hilt of my sword was actually a piece of the artifact we were searching for, and I'd had it all along without knowing it.

2) The battle ended as soon as that happened, and now we've moved to a part of the adventure that relies more on role-play instead of fighting, so I can do without it for now.

3) I do have a backup weapon. It's not as effective as my sword on foot (it's a lance), but I'm not completely defenseless.

4) I'm guessing, given how this guy's a pretty sweet GM, this is merely the first step to getting me a BETTER sword.

Sure, it was arbitrary, I didn't have a say in it, and it was sprung on me without warning, but in context it's really not that big a deal, even if it was a +2 adamantine bastard sword with a cool name.

erikun
2011-08-27, 11:00 PM
I mean, in a PbP here on these very forums, the GM just arbitrarily destroyed my character's sword, but I was okay with it because:

Sure, it was arbitrary, I didn't have a say in it, and it was sprung on me without warning, but in context it's really not that big a deal, even if it was a +2 adamantine bastard sword with a cool name.
I think it depends a lot on how acceptable the players view that sort of thing. Some people don't mind, and enjoy the challange of trying to overcome without their weapon. Some people don't mind as long as there isn't a combat situation, but would find it a problem if they needed to go through a fight without the weapon. Some people take offense to any change or loss of anything related to the character, no matter how temporary or how it is handled.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 11:02 PM
Sacrificing a resource is a way to add tension, and there are reasons to do it. here's one: When nothing bad ever happens to the hero or those he cares for, it's boring. he rises, he'll win, he'll overcome. or he'll fail and the story ends. Two outcomes. happily ever after, or death. If nothing precious, nothing close, nothing less nor more than the character's life is at stake, that's really all you get. But sometimes, the ending isn't always so clean. the haggard war vet with a bad leg, the shining warrior who returned triumphant to find his house was overrun in the invasion, these stories cannot be told without the loss of exactly that which you say is unacceptable to lose. Sometimes, there is pain without death.

See, that's hilarious, because I run and play those exact types of story. You know how I make do? How I achieve the exact same thing?

I let the player decide. Strange as it sounds, players aren't my monkeys, to dance at my whims for my entertainment. I do not decide what makes for a good story based on my incomplete understanding of the character he or she is playing (and it will always be incomplete, because nobody knows the character better than the creator themselves). I do not say "Ah, the best way to finish this story is to have the heroine return home to find her beloved child dead."

I tell my stories with my players.


So if you are among the "some people" mentioned in your post, follow your advice and cop to it. I'm all for having items damaged, diseases inflicted, bloodied, injuries, and what have you, so long as the game remains fun. And if I discuss it beforehand, it's not the same. A fight where winner takes all and doesn't get hurt breaks my suspension of disbelief.

Of course I'm part of the "some people" mentioned before. But just because I am doesn't mean I'm the only one.

I am all for that too, but as I said, I make decisions that irreversibly affect the character with the player. I'm not saying that your playstyle isn't valid, merely showing you that I achieve the exact same effect, tell the exact same stories and inflict the exact same tragedies with a completely different methodology. I do not remove a player's resources. I give the player the freedom to choose how their story plays out. Because it's not my story. It's their story. I'm just the guy playing the NPCs.


A choice is a decision the player has between multiple options that have different outcomes. The illusion of choice is a decision that seems to be a choice, but actually only has one outcome. "Choices" like two options that lead to the same outcome, options were all but one lead back to the beginning, and options where one is clearly better than the others are illusions, not choices.

I never said that the illusion pertained to choices. I said that the illusion pertains to the notion that some resources are more acceptable to remove than others. There's also the illusion that if the DM finds a plausible in-story reason, that makes it okay to remove a resource, too. I never claimed that there was an illusion of choice.


Neither playstyle is better than the other. Indeed, some people prefer one playstyle over the other. People who enjoy a character-involved plot can prefer the illusion of choice to ensure their enjoyment of the game. People who want a challange can prefer choices with the possibility of failure. It depends, largely, on what the people at the table want.

That is exactly what I said.


Choices can have positive or negative consequences on the character. In a lot of systems, a comparison between a sword vs a fist indicates that the sword is better. It can cut far better than a fist, and generally deals more damage to an opponent. The tradeoff, though, is that the sword can be taken away, while a fist cannot. Or rather, that while a fist can be taken away - the character's arm could be chopped off - in most situations where a sword is removed, a character's fist is not.

This becomes a choice. The character may choose to invest in their fists, rather secure that most situations where their physical belongings are taken away from them, they will retain their fists. The character may also choose to invest in a sword, getting a more reliable weapon but with an increased risk of the weapon being removed from their possession. This is only a choice because both options have positive and negative consequences. If the player had no chance of losing their sword, through whatever mechanics, then there is no longer a choice; the sword is always superior.

The possibility of losing a resource is part of the choice. Calling giving the player the choice "flimsy" or "laughable" or "an illusion" is incorrect. It is a perfectly valid playstyle. It is presenting the player with a set of differing options, and I'm not sure why that has been presented as a bad thing throughout this thread.

No, actually. What you claim is not necessarily true. A fist might be less powerful than a sword because everyone is automatically proficient with a fist, or because optimising unarmed combat is easier/better than optimising sword combat, or because fists have some inherent advantage (like being able to be used in a grapple) that is completely independent from the fact that they could be potentially removed. That's simply an unfounded reasoning.

What I called "flimsy" and "laughable" was the notion that the DM can hope to conceal an OOC matter ("I want to get rid of that resource you possess") with an in-story reason. What I called an illusion was already explained above.


That's not really true. Some kinds of stories are impossible if you don't allow item removal. These are VERY common stories, especially in fantasy (unlike crippling, mutilating, and mind-raping players).

This is true. However, nothing says that the item to be removed need be a player resource. In the Lord of the Rings, it's perfectly plausible that the One Ring is not in anyone's character sheet, but exists as a plot device that does not belong to any one player, and therefore is not a player's resource.


You know, I think this whole conversation is being blown completely out of proportion by you. As far as items go, I think we all acknowledge how item-dependent D&D is. I don't think anyone disagrees with that or the importance of players having their items.

Of course it looks like it's been blown out of proportion. When you start by assuming that some resources are more acceptable to remove than others, and someone comes and says that this is not true, that they are equivalent to any other player resource, it seems like the situation has been blown out of proportion because the "acceptable target" has been elevated to stand along the other player resources.


This dependence, however, can make things difficult if the DM wants to do a fairly typical sort of fantasy story that involves characters losing their stuff. The players become absolutely crippled by that. No one is saying this is a good thing or that a DM should go around doing this in D&D (at least not without careful planning), I don't believe. The point is that this is a design problem with D&D, because the gear dependence of the game makes things difficult.

I'm not debating that. I'm not debating D&D and gear dependency in the least. I'm saying that removing gear is the same as removing any other kind of resource a player has. That's all.


And yes, as far as player power goes a +1 sword is the same as +1 bonus to hit and damage with swords held and such and such hand (generally speaking). As far as game mechanics go though, it IS different. This is part of the D&D game inherently. There are rules for sundering or disarming one and not the other. There are rules for taking one and not the other. The game treats them differently and that's a fact.* Not a problem in itself, per se, but it is a problem when it is combined with the extreme gear dependence in the game.

Yes, and? I'm sorry, I just don't know what your point is. I am not debating D&D's reliance on gear. I gave you options to refluff gear if you want to run an item-less game. If you want me to say "Oh, you're right, I guess gear is more acceptable to remove from a character than skill ranks," it's not going to happen. If you want to run an item-less D&D game, you'll have to refluff. But whether you like it or not, a character's gear is just as much of a resource as his class levels, spell slots or feats. Are they more easily removed? Maybe. I think the rules for energy drain are easier than the rules for sundering, but that's pretty subjective.


I'm talking about things on the level of GAME DESIGN. What is good, what isn't, what sorts of design can lead to problems. If I was going to make a more ideal system that's like D&D, I'd tone down gear dependence tremendously. If I was using, say, a game system where how you spent points in self-power, allies, etc, was important, I'd design a way to compensate players a bit when allies are lost and have them replaceable in time. I might use a system where you get something like extra Force/Fate/Whatever Points where the lost of a resource negatively impacted you. Or I might make it so that the temporary loss of such a resource just couldn't cripple a player and limit how much any player could be crippled** -- without DM fiat and special notes to the DM on handling such a potentially delicate character. Both would be more friendly for a wider variety of stories, while still allowing loss to be felt.

And I am NOT talking about game design. I don't care about gear dependency. If you do, then go you. That's not my point in the slightest.

What you seem to insist on is that there are some resources that are "disposable" or "more acceptable to remove" than others. That's fallacious. Just because there are detailed rules to sunder an item and not for removing feats (other than the Dark Chaos Feat Shuffle) or skill ranks, doesn't mean a DM can't get rid of those just as easily. There are rules for spell theft too, and level loss, and ability drain, and memory erasure. Anything a character has can be removed by the DM, and in most cases, there are detailed rules for that. So your focus on a certain subgroup of resources is truly baffling.


Anyhow, I'm trying to talk about this sort of thing, and how bad design can lead to problems. You're acting like I'm somehow advocating DMs in D&D games destroy player gear left and right and other things like that. I'm explicitly saying that's a bad thing in D&D. However, the rules quite clearly make this extremely easy to do. It's even very effective and smart for villains to do this. So tell me, do you think this isn't a design problem with the game?

That's because that's not what I was talking about originally, whereas I *am* actually talking about DMs who destroy player resources (not just gear) because what the rules say is meaningless. Who cares what the written rules let you and don't let you do? Do you think written rules stop a DM? Do you think that because the DM has a thousand ways to destroy your sword and just one way to destroy your mind, that makes your sword more acceptable to be destroyed? If a villain wants to destroy everything you possess and everything you are, it can do that. And it can do so simply because the DM wants to.

It has nothing to do with the way the game is designed because resource removal has nothing to do with the rules of the game. Resource removal is not something the game system is to blame, or the story of the campaign, it's something the DM, as a person, is responsible of.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 11:05 PM
This is what I mean by blowing it out of proportion. We try to make a nice, calm point about game design and how it relates to this problem. You then decide to pick a fight when we aren't even arguing for what you are arguing against. It's gone on for over a page now. This is ridiculous.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 11:08 PM
This is what I mean by blowing it out of proportion. We try to make a nice, calm point about game design and how it relates to this problem. You then decide to pick a fight when we aren't even arguing for what you are arguing against. It's gone on for over a page now. This is ridiculous.

You are assuming it's about game design. It's not. The OP clearly states it's got to do with the "players vs. DM" mentality. It's an OOC matter, it's got absolutely nothing to do with game design in the slightest. Otherwise, this'd be in the 3.5e section of the boards by now.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 11:11 PM
You are assuming it's about game design. It's not. The OP clearly states it's got to do with the "players vs. DM" mentality. It's an OOC matter, it's got absolutely nothing to do with game design in the slightest. Otherwise, this'd be in the 3.5e section of the boards by now.

Yes, and this all started because someone made a small footnote about game design and you went after them back on Page 1. I defended their point and it snowballed from there. Some have since discussed how this sort of thing can be handled in D&D or other games.

None of us disagree with the idea that DMs vs. Players is bad and that DMs devastating the capabilities of the players permanently is bad (unless that's the kind of game the players want).

erikun
2011-08-27, 11:14 PM
No, actually. What you claim is not necessarily true. A fist might be less powerful than a sword because everyone is automatically proficient with a fist, or because optimising unarmed combat is easier/better than optimising sword combat, or because fists have some inherent advantage (like being able to be used in a grapple) that is completely independent from the fact that they could be potentially removed. That's simply an unfounded reasoning.
It is not always true, but that does not mean it is never true. It is sometimes true and sometimes not. Take a look at D&D; basically every weapon is superior to the fist. Even the simple dagger is superior, with no feats to use in combat and able to receive magical enhancements.

And you are right. Sometimes, the tradeoff has nothing to do with the weapon's ability to be removed. But sometimes it does. It is not "unfounded reasoning"; it is just as valid a tradeoff as the others.


What I called "flimsy" and "laughable" was the notion that the DM can hope to conceal an OOC matter ("I want to get rid of that resource you possess") with an in-story reason. What I called an illusion was already explained above.
My point is that it isn't an OOC DM decision. It is an OOC player decision, because when offered the option (better, losable weapon or worst, nonlosable one) the player has the choice either way.

It would be deceptive to mask this choice by pretending that resource loss is not going to happen in-game, but in presenting the choice fairly, the DM is not "using an in-story reason to conceal an OOC matter".

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 11:14 PM
Yes, and this all started because someone made a small footnote about game design and you went after them back on Page 1. I defended their point and it snowballed from there. Some have since discussed how this sort of thing can be handled in D&D or other games.

None of us disagree with the idea that DMs vs. Players is bad and that DMs devastating the capabilities of the players permanently is bad (unless that's the kind of game the players want).

Oh, then my bad.

We're on game design, you say? I think the only mistake in D&D is not spelling out that you can refluff items, and provide guidelines and examples on how to do so.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-27, 11:17 PM
Here's a question though. Say you refluff the abilities of a weapon to being something internal for the wielder, like "I can set any sword I pick up on fire." How do you take that away in a manner that doesn't seem so arbitrary and obvious? A sword can just be broken or stolen. Taking away someone's superpowers usually is more along the lines of a big deal, even WITH the fact that EVERY supervillain in Metropolis seems to have a stockpile of Kryptonite just lying around.

Knaight
2011-08-27, 11:25 PM
That's because that's not what I was talking about originally, whereas I *am* actually talking about DMs who destroy player resources (not just gear) because what the rules say is meaningless. Who cares what the written rules let you and don't let you do? Do you think written rules stop a DM? Do you think that because the DM has a thousand ways to destroy your sword and just one way to destroy your mind, that makes your sword more acceptable to be destroyed? If a villain wants to destroy everything you possess and everything you are, it can do that. And it can do so simply because the DM wants to.

It has nothing to do with the way the game is designed because resource removal has nothing to do with the rules of the game. Resource removal is not something the game system is to blame, or the story of the campaign, it's something the DM, as a person, is responsible of.
The clear delineation of "player resources" from everything else is B.S. Innate to the concept of resources within a story is the concept of related stakes - what of this resource is at risk, in what way? And these stakes are not some universal, across the board deal. They can vary by campaign, by character, by player within a campaign, by genre, by any number of things. Take gear for example. If everyone decides ahead of time to play a sword and sorcery style game, it makes sense to assign gear as a highly fluid resource, where complete loss of gear, destruction of gear, so on and so forth is just assumed, along with constant acquisition. Now, say there is a character concept which involves a particular set of gear - say an exiled military officer who keeps the weapon of their office - which is not just "gear", but important to the character. In that case, a different understanding should be reached, perhaps one where the item is always attached to the character unless the player of that character chooses to offer up its loss as a complication.

Now, all of this is gear, within a framework. There are other in game resources, such as the extent to which the characters are intact, mentally and physically. Is the loss of limbs or the development of psychoses appropriate to the game people want to play, and the kind of stories they want to tell? In the case of the player characters, this may well be a no, and it can be a no where the theft or destruction of gear is very much a yes. And like the particular sword, there may be exceptions - perhaps one character wants to play a variety of concepts briefly, and thus doesn't mind a character who can be killed off at the whims of the dice. Perhaps certain scenes are seen as interesting turning points for all involved, and the standards change in them. So on and so forth.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 11:31 PM
Here's a question though. Say you refluff the abilities of a weapon to being something internal for the wielder, like "I can set any sword I pick up on fire." How do you take that away in a manner that doesn't seem so arbitrary and obvious? A sword can just be broken or stolen. Taking away someone's superpowers usually is more along the lines of a big deal, even WITH the fact that EVERY supervillain in Metropolis seems to have a stockpile of Kryptonite just lying around.

Personally, I'd go for a modification where MOST of the stuff gotten from magical items is now innate. A starting point might be all static bonuses become innate. You could still have a magical sword, but it might been a Keen Flaming sword or something. Losing it would diminish your effectiveness, but it wouldn't cripple you.

Might be good to adjust it so that you could only have say 3 magical items at a time in addition. Losing them would hurt, but it wouldn't cripple you either. Seems more sensible than magical hat, boots, gloves, belt, weapons, armor, shield, rings, necklace, etc. It would require a fair bit of work to do this, of course.

Hmm, if we wanted a universal system that could apply to any sort of story (I am not sure this is a good design goal, mind you). We could organize these modifiers into tiers and work hard to make each one of equal value. Then you can play around with the removal of a tier and its effect in a controlled manner.

erikun
2011-08-27, 11:31 PM
Here's a question though. Say you refluff the abilities of a weapon to being something internal for the wielder, like "I can set any sword I pick up on fire." How do you take that away in a manner that doesn't seem so arbitrary and obvious? A sword can just be broken or stolen. Taking away someone's superpowers usually is more along the lines of a big deal, even WITH the fact that EVERY supervillain in Metropolis seems to have a stockpile of Kryptonite just lying around.
Anti-Magic Fields or null magic areas.

And really, if you're going to the trouble to give the players magically enhanced abilities rather than magically enhanced equipment - all for the sake of the players not losing it when they lose their equipment - then why would you want to come up with devices to take away the enhanced abilities?

The strangest thing I would see, from a player standpoint, would be exchanging "I can set any sword on fire" with "I can deal extra damage to evil people". It seems like it would be difficult to fluff gaining the ability of Flaming weapons, but needing to give it up for an Holy weapon ability.

Drachasor
2011-08-27, 11:33 PM
The strangest thing I would see, from a player standpoint, would be exchanging "I can set any sword on fire" with "I can deal extra damage to evil people". It seems like it would be difficult to fluff gaining the ability of Flaming weapons, but needing to give it up for an Holy weapon ability.

Well, the system would have to change so that ideally you could have more organic growth (if desired). Tricky with D&D monsters, as classically fire damage sucks.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 11:35 PM
It is not always true, but that does not mean it is never true. It is sometimes true and sometimes not. Take a look at D&D; basically every weapon is superior to the fist. Even the simple dagger is superior, with no feats to use in combat and able to receive magical enhancements.

And you are right. Sometimes, the tradeoff has nothing to do with the weapon's ability to be removed. But sometimes it does. It is not "unfounded reasoning"; it is just as valid a tradeoff as the others.

And that's exactly why it's an unfounded reasoning. Saying that "look, the fist is worse than the sword because the sword can be sundered! We have to make the fist relevant, so let's start sundering those swords!" is unfounded, because you don't know if this is truly the case. And most importantly, you don't know if it's entirely the case. Maybe the fist is worse because of other reasons in addition to that, and going all sunder-happy is completely unwarranted.


My point is that it isn't an OOC DM decision. It is an OOC player decision, because when offered the option (better, losable weapon or worst, nonlosable one) the player has the choice either way.

It would be deceptive to mask this choice by pretending that resource loss is not going to happen in-game, but in presenting the choice fairly, the DM is not "using an in-story reason to conceal an OOC matter".

A player makes a decision on what resources to choose, that is correct. However, the choice to remove those resources IS the DM's choice. You are disguising an OOC DM action (removing a player's resource) by pretending it was the player's fault for choosing a more easily removable resource. That's like saying that a rich person getting robbed was their own choice for earning so much money.


Here's a question though. Say you refluff the abilities of a weapon to being something internal for the wielder, like "I can set any sword I pick up on fire." How do you take that away in a manner that doesn't seem so arbitrary and obvious? A sword can just be broken or stolen. Taking away someone's superpowers usually is more along the lines of a big deal, even WITH the fact that EVERY supervillain in Metropolis seems to have a stockpile of Kryptonite just lying around.

Give the character an innate weakness, like not being able to manifest the fire power if someon within five-feet sings a specific song or performs a specific set of abjuring sigils in the air (treat it, mechanically, as making a sunder attempt. A failure means that the procedure was performed incorrectly and the character's powers remain active).

Or make everyone have such "innate powers," and give other people water or ice themed powers and have them oppose the character's fire with cold or water.

Or give them minor and highly speciifc anti-magic cantrips designed to counter people with that type of powers.

I could go on.


The clear delineation of "player resources" from everything else is B.S. Innate to the concept of resources within a story is the concept of related stakes - what of this resource is at risk, in what way? And these stakes are not some universal, across the board deal. They can vary by campaign, by character, by player within a campaign, by genre, by any number of things. Take gear for example. If everyone decides ahead of time to play a sword and sorcery style game, it makes sense to assign gear as a highly fluid resource, where complete loss of gear, destruction of gear, so on and so forth is just assumed, along with constant acquisition. Now, say there is a character concept which involves a particular set of gear - say an exiled military officer who keeps the weapon of their office - which is not just "gear", but important to the character. In that case, a different understanding should be reached, perhaps one where the item is always attached to the character unless the player of that character chooses to offer up its loss as a complication.

You mix up player resources with things that matter to the character and things that happen in a story. A player's resources need not be an actual part of the story. If a player's resource is "A +1 to attack and damage," that need not translate into a single magic weapon. You can have, in the story, the character going through a ton of weapons in the course of the story, but his resources remain constant because it's recognised that what a player has need not be represented with something the character has. A character may lose friends and family, but she may continue to maintain one ally at all times because she's spent dots in that merit and it's recognised that the merit is an investment made by the player, not by the character.

I'm not saying that this is the "right" way to play. I'm saying that it's perfectly possible to have any sort of story without actually removing a player's resources in any way.


Now, all of this is gear, within a framework. There are other in game resources, such as the extent to which the characters are intact, mentally and physically. Is the loss of limbs or the development of psychoses appropriate to the game people want to play, and the kind of stories they want to tell? In the case of the player characters, this may well be a no, and it can be a no where the theft or destruction of gear is very much a yes. And like the particular sword, there may be exceptions - perhaps one character wants to play a variety of concepts briefly, and thus doesn't mind a character who can be killed off at the whims of the dice. Perhaps certain scenes are seen as interesting turning points for all involved, and the standards change in them. So on and so forth.

Precisely. All resources are all equally likely to be removed depending on the DM's wants. If the players are okay with that, all the more power to them. But it's not the only way to play, and it's certainly not necessary in any way.

Knaight
2011-08-27, 11:41 PM
Precisely. All resources are all equally likely to be removed depending on the DM's wants. If the players are okay with that, all the more power to them. But it's not the only way to play, and it's certainly not necessary in any way.

No. The capacity of the resource to be removed and likelihood thereof is dependent upon the decisions made regarding the treatment of said resources. Some of these decisions can be tied up in a game system, though presumably said system was chosen in part because of how it handles said resources. Others are entirely within the purview of the players, one or more of whom may be described as a GM. There is nothing innate to a resource in all games that makes it harder to remove than others, true, but that doesn't translate to all resources being equally likely to be removed. Likelihood of removal is a value that is imposed upon a resource, and this imposition is not nearly universal on different kinds of resources.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-27, 11:46 PM
No. The capacity of the resource to be removed and likelihood thereof is dependent upon the decisions made regarding the treatment of said resources. Some of these decisions can be tied up in a game system, though presumably said system was chosen in part because of how it handles said resources. Others are entirely within the purview of the players, one or more of whom may be described as a GM. There is nothing innate to a resource in all games that makes it harder to remove than others, true, but that doesn't translate to all resources being equally likely to be removed. Likelihood of removal is a value that is imposed upon a resource, and this imposition is not nearly universal on different kinds of resources.

That is true on a game-to-game basis. But if we're talking about all RPGs in general (as I was), then it's actually false, because when the exact vicissitudes of the game in question are unknown, you can't point at a resource and say it's more or less likely to be removed than any other.

erikun
2011-08-27, 11:47 PM
A player makes a decision on what resources to choose, that is correct. However, the choice to remove those resources IS the DM's choice. You are disguising an OOC DM action (removing a player's resource) by pretending it was the player's fault for choosing a more easily removable resource. That's like saying that a rich person getting robbed was their own choice for earning so much money.
It really shouldn't be a DM choice what the character chooses to do, or how they go about doing so. If they choose to go into the lair of the sword-smashing ogres with their valuable magical weapon, rather than a less important weapon or with their fists, then they are choosing to run the risk of losing their weapon. Ideally, they should have other choices as well: diplomancy with the ogres, employing hirelings to help out, hiring a team of dwarves to seal the enterance, and so on.

I do agree that the DM should not arbitrarily attack a character's resources. That is both uninteresting and annoying. So no, the rich character should not be robbed just because they are rich. On the other hand, being robbed as the hook to an adventure (with the reasonable understanding that they can get the money back afterwards) I consider fair game. I would also consider it fair if they lost money because they invested it into some plan to entrap an opponent, and failing to do so involved the loss of the resource. In this case, like the sword-smashing ogres from above, the player knew that there were risks involved and choose to use that resource, knowing the potential for losing it.

Knaight
2011-08-27, 11:50 PM
That is true on a game-to-game basis. But if we're talking about all RPGs in general (as I was), then it's actually false, because when the exact vicissitudes of the game in question are unknown, you can't point at a resource and say it's more or less likely to be removed than any other.
Sure you can. Its merely that it is not the games that you should be looking at, but the people that play them. This works both within the context of an individual group, and within the entire population of people who play role playing games - though in the latter case, one is limited to educated guesses at best. For instance, I'd guess that the removal of a characters capability to act in a physical manner for a limited period of time is viewed as more likely than the permanent removal of a large part of a characters physical capability. In most games with Resurrection mechanics, this means that characters are more likely to be killed than crippled, which seems to hold true in most games.

erikun
2011-08-27, 11:57 PM
I'd question trying to make conclusions about all RPGs as a whole, in any direction. Besides the fact that we can find a contradiction somewhere for nearly every statement, we begin to make assumptions based on what the "general RPG" should be and run into problems when these assumptions start to conflict.

We would be better with sticking to specific RPG systems, or stating what we think would be the best system mechanics/method of DMing. It would be far less confusing to say "a system can allow for the removal of character resources" than to say "physical object resources are easier to remove from a character than other resources".

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 12:07 AM
We would be better with sticking to specific RPG systems, or stating what we think would be the best system mechanics/method of DMing. It would be far less confusing to say "a system can allow for the removal of character resources" than to say "physical object resources are easier to remove from a character than other resources".

And ones that have a job and go to work at some location away from the player are even easier to remove.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 12:14 AM
It really shouldn't be a DM choice what the character chooses to do, or how they go about doing so. If they choose to go into the lair of the sword-smashing ogres with their valuable magical weapon, rather than a less important weapon or with their fists, then they are choosing to run the risk of losing their weapon. Ideally, they should have other choices as well: diplomancy with the ogres, employing hirelings to help out, hiring a team of dwarves to seal the enterance, and so on.

Again, saying that the rich man who gets robbed is choosing to get robbed because he's walking around with cash on him. It's not the choice of the muggers to rob him, oh no. It's his choice for earning so much money.

Sorry, there's no way you can justify this. Unless the players specifically states they would like for X resource to be removed (or they give the DM permission to remove their resources as he sees fit), it's always going to be the DM's choice. And even in the event that the player allows the DM to remove his or her resources, it's still the DM's choice when, how, where and how often this happens.


I do agree that the DM should not arbitrarily attack a character's resources. That is both uninteresting and annoying. So no, the rich character should not be robbed just because they are rich. On the other hand, being robbed as the hook to an adventure (with the reasonable understanding that they can get the money back afterwards) I consider fair game. I would also consider it fair if they lost money because they invested it into some plan to entrap an opponent, and failing to do so involved the loss of the resource. In this case, like the sword-smashing ogres from above, the player knew that there were risks involved and choose to use that resource, knowing the potential for losing it.

What you call "arbitrary" is meaningless to me. It is always arbitrary.

What you call "as a hook to an adventure" is "found a vaguely justifiable reason" to me. Same arbitrariness, only with a little decoration to distract onlookers. Same for all the other rationales you propose. It's all arbitrary. They just happen to have an excuse draped around them to fool the player into accepting them.


Sure you can. Its merely that it is not the games that you should be looking at, but the people that play them. This works both within the context of an individual group, and within the entire population of people who play role playing games - though in the latter case, one is limited to educated guesses at best. For instance, I'd guess that the removal of a characters capability to act in a physical manner for a limited period of time is viewed as more likely than the permanent removal of a large part of a characters physical capability. In most games with Resurrection mechanics, this means that characters are more likely to be killed than crippled, which seems to hold true in most games.

I was going to reply, but erikun beat me to it.


I'd question trying to make conclusions about all RPGs as a whole, in any direction. Besides the fact that we can find a contradiction somewhere for nearly every statement, we begin to make assumptions based on what the "general RPG" should be and run into problems when these assumptions start to conflict.

Guesswork is hardly productive.

Knaight
2011-08-28, 12:19 AM
Again, saying that the rich man who gets robbed is choosing to get robbed because he's walking around with cash on him. It's not the choice of the muggers to rob him, oh no. It's his choice for earning so much money.

Wrong. Its a situational model, in which the players choose to have the risk of resource removal based on allocation of resources, or this is imposed upon them*. At a metagame level, its like gambling - if my character brings the Sword Of Killing Everything it decreases the risk of loss, but includes the Sword of Killing Everything in said loss. So its not a matter of a rich man getting robbed being the fault of the rich man. Its the rich man who loses a bunch of money because he put it into a game of roulette and lost.


Guesswork is hardly productive.
That we can only guess which situations are more probable does not make them equally probable. In fact, stating that all are equally probable is a guess, and a long shot at that.

*Obviously, one of these is much more acceptable than the other.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 12:36 AM
Wrong. Its a situational model, in which the players choose to have the risk of resource removal based on allocation of resources, or this is imposed upon them*. At a metagame level, its like gambling - if my character brings the Sword Of Killing Everything it decreases the risk of loss, but includes the Sword of Killing Everything in said loss. So its not a matter of a rich man getting robbed being the fault of the rich man. Its the rich man who loses a bunch of money because he put it into a game of roulette and lost.

The fallacy in the argument is that it assumes that the player's resources are always innately at the risk of being removed, and that the removal is an inherent and unavoidable part of the game. Do note that I'm talking about the player's resources, not the character's. You can't point at the sunder rules and claim that they support the idea that player resource removal is unavoidable. Sunder and all those mechanics may well be intended to be used by the players.

If you assume that resource removal is optional, that argument becomes inherently wrong due to faulty premises.


That we can only guess which situations are more probable does not make them equally probable. In fact, stating that all are equally probable is a guess, and a long shot at that.

Actually, guessing is meaningless, because the fact that you have to guess indicates that you don't know for sure. And when you don't know for sure, all variables have the exact same probability value, which is "?".

erikun
2011-08-28, 12:39 AM
Again, saying that the rich man who gets robbed is choosing to get robbed because he's walking around with cash on him. It's not the choice of the muggers to rob him, oh no. It's his choice for earning so much money.

Sorry, there's no way you can justify this.
Funny, because that is exactly what I said as well. I said that removing a resource the player has just because the player has it is not something the DM should do. I'm not sure why you took the time to point this out again when my statement is in agreement.


What you call "arbitrary" is meaningless to me. It is always arbitrary.

What you call "as a hook to an adventure" is "found a vaguely justifiable reason" to me. Same arbitrariness, only with a little decoration to distract onlookers. Same for all the other rationales you propose. It's all arbitrary. They just happen to have an excuse draped around them to fool the player into accepting them.
I presented two examples, one where the player recognizes the risk and makes the choice based on it, and the other when the character is temporarily unable to bring that particular resource to use.

In the first, while the scenario is "arbitrary" (although I question the word's use) the player is still in control of how they wish to approach it. If they choose to take the risk, then they are trusting in the dice to avoid losing their resource (or they feel losing their resource would be a sufficient price). If they did not, then they would choose another option, either in different weapon or different method. At no point does the DM choose that the character's resource is to be removed.

In the second, it is not only a temporary measure but also only preventing the character from using that resource for the current situation. Saying that the character cannot use their bank account resource because it's been stolen is like saying the character cannot use their pickup truck resource because they are inside an office building or that they cannot use their fist resource because they are ingaged in a helicoptor fight.


Guesswork is hardly productive.
Then we should not use vague terms like "all RPGs in general" and rather be specific in what we are talking about. We will spend less time guessing what everyone else is talking about.

Knaight
2011-08-28, 12:44 AM
The fallacy in the argument is that it assumes that the player's resources are always innately at the risk of being removed, and that the removal is an inherent and unavoidable part of the game. Do note that I'm talking about the player's resources, not the character's. You can't point at the sunder rules and claim that they support the idea that player resource removal is unavoidable. Sunder and all those mechanics may well be intended to be used by the players.

If you assume that resource removal is optional, that argument becomes inherently wrong due to faulty premises.
Hardly. It assumes that one can always choose to make any player resource removable, not that they always are. That choice very much exists, and is woven into the social contract of the game. Moreover, one of the options there is a pseudo gambling model, which is what erikun was proposing. Its not the only model, as I've said before one could very much declare the resources involved off limits for all but the player to whom they belong, but it is a valid model.



Actually, guessing is meaningless, because the fact that you have to guess indicates that you don't know for sure. And when you don't know for sure, all variables have the exact same probability value, which is "?".
Ignoring the flaws in this argument, saying they are all the same is still a guess. We know they have the capacity to vary, and we know that there are a large number of them, which means that them not all being the same is far more probable than them all being the same. We are guessing things that have actual values, and the fact that we don't know them for sure doesn't mean they are all the same. That is like saying that we know there are atoms, but we can't measure the mass of atoms, so all atoms must have the same mass.

erikun
2011-08-28, 12:54 AM
Probably my biggest concern here is that I'd be misunderstood or unable to appropriately clarify the stance I am trying to make. So far, I don't think that I've really been disagreeing with Shadowknight on very many issues, but I keep seeing the response of "No" or "Wrong" or "cannot justify", which makes me confused.

Just to make something clear: You, Shadowknight, do not think that there should ever be a risk for a player to lose character resources. Is that correct?

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 01:00 AM
Funny, because that is exactly what I said as well. I said that removing a resource the player has just because the player has it is not something the DM should do. I'm not sure why you took the time to point this out again when my statement is in agreement.

Fair enough. My bad.


I presented two examples, one where the player recognizes the risk and makes the choice based on it, and the other when the character is temporarily unable to bring that particular resource to use.

"Recognises the risk" is the key part there. You presuppose an inherent risk in using a player resource. The player cannot use his or her resources in certain ways without suffering the risk of removal. The player is effectively conditioned not only by what the rules tell her she can and can't do with her resource, but by the DM's arbitrary interpretations of what use of such resources "carry a risk." That's akin to saying that woman showing cleavage "carries a risk" when she goes out.


In the first, while the scenario is "arbitrary" (although I question the word's use) the player is still in control of how they wish to approach it. If they choose to take the risk, then they are trusting in the dice to avoid losing their resource (or they feel losing their resource would be a sufficient price). If they did not, then they would choose another option, either in different weapon or different method. At no point does the DM choose that the character's resource is to be removed.

You seem to be forgetting that the person who decides whether a player's actions carry the risk of resource removal is the DM. Nothing makes a DM say "Okay, you brought your ally to the masquerade. That means I'm going to try to kill him." instead of "Okay, you brought your ally to the masquerade. Cool." That's a choice the DM is making, a choice to remove (or attempt to remove) the player's resource.


In the second, it is not only a temporary measure but also only preventing the character from using that resource for the current situation. Saying that the character cannot use their bank account resource because it's been stolen is like saying the character cannot use their pickup truck resource because they are inside an office building or that they cannot use their fist resource because they are ingaged in a helicoptor fight.

Normally, the rules already cover that sort of thing. The DM imposing further limitations and punishments for using said resource, or removing it temporarily when the rules allow for such a resource to be used (such as a character rushing to the office building's parking space), is a choice the DM is making, and it's just as arbitrary with or without the excuses you're proposing.


Then we should not use vague terms like "all RPGs in general" and rather be specific in what we are talking about. We will spend less time guessing what everyone else is talking about.

It is productive, however, when one wants to talk about... oh, I don't know, all RPGs in general.


Hardly. It assumes that one can always choose to make any player resource removable, not that they always are. That choice very much exists, and is woven into the social contract of the game. Moreover, one of the options there is a pseudo gambling model, which is what erikun was proposing. Its not the only model, as I've said before one could very much declare the resources involved off limits for all but the player to whom they belong, but it is a valid model.

You are completely mistaken. That choice is not woven into the social contract of the game. It may be in some cases, but you cannot make that statement as though it were universal. It has, for instance, never existed in a single game I've played or run. You can say that it's woven into the social contract of some of the models you're proposing, and that would be perfectly fine, but stating that it's a part of the social contract of the game is just plain wrong. Any example of a game where this is not the case instantly disproves it.


Ignoring the flaws in this argument, saying they are all the same is still a guess. We know they have the capacity to vary, and we know that there are a large number of them, which means that them not all being the same is far more probable than them all being the same. We are guessing things that have actual values, and the fact that we don't know them for sure doesn't mean they are all the same. That is like saying that we know there are atoms, but we can't measure the mass of atoms, so all atoms must have the same mass.

If we didn't know the mass of atoms, they would all have the same mass until we could prove otherwise, and the value of that mass would be "?". Or, said otherwise, you can guess all you like, but the end result is that you have no idea which atom is the heaviest if you don't actually know their masses.


Probably my biggest concern here is that I'd be misunderstood or unable to appropriately clarify the stance I am trying to make. So far, I don't think that I've really been disagreeing with Shadowknight on very many issues, but I keep seeing the response of "No" or "Wrong" or "cannot justify", which makes me confused.

Just to make something clear: You, Shadowknight, do not think that there should ever be a risk for a player to lose character resources. Is that correct?

I'm not saying "should." I don't presume to know how a game "should" be played. What I'm saying is that people are assuming that their way of playing the game (where player resource removal is a reality) is the way the game should be played, or that a player getting their resources removed is their own fault, or that resource removal is somehow necessary. All these things are false.

I personally don't play games where my resources are in anyone else's hands but mine or those I explicitly allow. And conversely, when I run games, a player's resources are left untouched unless the player says otherwise. But, again, that's my way of playing and I'm not implying it's the right one. I'm merely pointing out that resource removal is in no way inherent to anything.

erikun
2011-08-28, 01:41 AM
I personally don't play games where my resources are in anyone else's hands but mine or those I explicitly allow. And conversely, when I run games, a player's resources are left untouched unless the player says otherwise. But, again, that's my way of playing and I'm not implying it's the right one. I'm merely pointing out that resource removal is in no way inherent to anything.
And?
So?
What does this have to do with anything?

Every single person who has responded to you has pointed out that their examples and their experiences are not universal. From what I saw, everyone mentioned that your preferred playstyle is just as valid as others.

However, to quote the first post:

Just how many DMs actually DO that sort of stuff?
The topic of conversation is not about RPGs "in general" or "inherent" values of RPGs. It is about DMs and DMing styles that specifically remove resources. We can't talk about that without talking about games where resource removal happens.

If I seem defensive, it is because in just your previous post, I have been told that I "presuppose", that I "conditioned" a player, of my "arbitrary interpretations", of my "forgetting", my "limitations and punishments", my "excuses", and that my thoughts are "false". And even when you are right - taking away resources for a quest is arbitrary - it still comes off as accusatory.


I'm not saying "should." I don't presume to know how a game "should" be played. What I'm saying is that people are assuming that their way of playing the game (where player resource removal is a reality) is the way the game should be played, or that a player getting their resources removed is their own fault, or that resource removal is somehow necessary. All these things are false.
Nobody said that. I didn't say that. Knaight didn't say that. Drachasor didn't say that. Provengreil didn't say that (although he did say that resource removal can relate to the plot). Archpaladin Zousha most certainly didn't say that, as he is the one who has been asking the question.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 01:46 AM
And?
So?
What does this have to do with anything?

Every single person who has responded to you has pointed out that their examples and their experiences are not universal. From what I saw, everyone mentioned that your preferred playstyle is just as valid as others.

However, to quote the first post:

The topic of conversation is not about RPGs "in general" or "inherent" values of RPGs. It is about DMs and DMing styles that specifically remove resources. We can't talk about that without talking about games where resource removal happens.

If I seem defensive, it is because in just your previous post, I have been told that I "presuppose", that I "conditioned" a player, of my "arbitrary interpretations", of my "forgetting", my "limitations and punishments", my "excuses", and that my thoughts are "false". And even when you are right - taking away resources for a quest is arbitrary - it still comes off as accusatory.

Nobody said that. I didn't say that. Knight didn't say that. Drachasor didn't say that. Provengreil didn't say that (although he did say that resource removal can relate to the plot). Archpaladin Zousha most certainly didn't say that, as he is the one who has been asking the question.

Fair enough, if that's the case, then I have no further opinions. I apologise for any misunderstandings or misapplied accusations on my behalf.

Knaight
2011-08-28, 02:04 AM
Nobody said that. I didn't say that. Knight didn't say that. Drachasor didn't say that. Provengreil didn't say that (although he did say that resource removal can relate to the plot). Archpaladin Zousha most certainly didn't say that, as he is the one who has been asking the question.

Its Knaight (Nate), not Knight (Nite). Sorry, its a bit of a pet peeve.

As for everything else, amen to that. All I've said is that there are social contracts in which the resources operate - implicit or not - and that individual resources may be in anyone's belonging, and in anyone's control. Acknowledging the existence of part of a spectrum does not mean insistence upon fitting only that part.

SowZ
2011-08-28, 05:23 AM
You are wrong, simply because you used the words "need to." If you had used the word "could" or "might," you'd have been completely right.



Again, you're wrong simply because you used the word "shouldn't." If you had used the word "might not" or "doesn't have to be," I'd have agreed.

Also, you fall into the illusion trap again. What is a "natural plot progression" is completely arbitrary. It's DM whim presented in a way that seems plausible.

If a baddie can target an ally, why couldn't the ally survive the attempt by sheer luck, cleverness, timely intervention, adequate preparation, foresight, anticipation or any other reason? Why must "it makes sense for the ally to be threatened" to automatically mean "it makes sense for this resource to be eliminated now"? That's where the illusion lies. Any in-game justification for eliminating a resource can be countered by an in-game justification for that resource to be saved and preserved.



You are completely wrong, and again, because you speak in categorical, absolute ways. You assume that we all play (or should play) WoD in the same way. That is your mistake. I will have you know that other people have different playstyles and they do not, in fact, leave the fate of their own deaths, gear, friends or any other resource in the hands of the GM. Why? Because they don't like playing that way. They prefer to be in control of the fate of their own character. I would recommend you that you considered that other people think differently and that there are different ways of playing that run counter to what you do. And that they are all just as equally valid.

Also, you are saying, again "moving the story in certain directions that require certain people to die." That is utterly wrong. There is no story that requires anyone to die, with no other option to achieve the same effect. Even given the most convoluted, air-tight plot, there's always a hole in the loop. There's always a way you could have taken the story in the same direction and ended in the same place without actually touching the characters' resources.



That can be summed up by the phrase "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

You can assume I disagree with all the strength I can muster, mainly because you're making blanket statements about what any RPG "is supposed to be" and implying that any deviations from your perceptions do not conform to what the game "is supposed to be." I'd be offended, but I encounter that attitude far too often.

I thought the context of my post was pretty clear especially considering my earlier statements where I implicitly stated that one playstyle isn't better than another. Harping on word choices like 'should' and ignoring previous context and saying you know what attitude I have seems... Well...

You are using absolutes, too. There are some types of stories that cannot be told in any other way except through people dying. Some plot points are dependant on some people dying and there is no other way to do it. Most plots can be told in multiple ways, but to assume all plots can be told without certain deaths is being too absolute. Maybe that is not what you meant, but if I take a single word, ignore context, and run with it...

The players drive the plot in my games, absolutely. What happens and doesn't happen is based largely on their actions. But the results of their actions, the survival of specific equipment and allies, and their own survival is not based on their desires or whims but their actions as well. You can play differently. But the implied tone of WoD is a fairly fatalistic one and the expected playstyle of D&D is players only having control of their actions. You can play differently, but there is no need to jump on my post which was talking about the implied tone and expected/common playstyles of both games.

jindra34
2011-08-28, 12:50 PM
Shadowknight is there any situation or circumstance that you can think of where removal of a trait from a character is not due to OOC reasons? And can you also come up with a reason why an NPC built, played, and maintained by the GM would need to be removed for OOC reasons simply because its associated with a character sheet as an advantage?

Totally Guy
2011-08-28, 01:36 PM
In Apocalypse World there is a list of moves the the GM can make when a player fails a roll. One of these moves is "Take their stuff". In that game if stuff is being taken then that is a consequence for failure and one of many options available to the GM.

In this case it is not arbitrary as it is written into the rules of the game.

Swordguy
2011-08-28, 02:05 PM
You seem to be forgetting that the person who decides whether a player's actions carry the risk of resource removal is the DM. Nothing makes a DM say "Okay, you brought your ally to the masquerade. That means I'm going to try to kill him." instead of "Okay, you brought your ally to the masquerade. Cool." That's a choice the DM is making, a choice to remove (or attempt to remove) the player's resource.

Sorry to butt in on this one, but upon reading the entire thread, I have a question for you.

You DO realize that you're effectively arguing against the existence of a DM at all, right?

Every decision the DM makes - which PC the dragon attacks first, whether there's useful magic items in the loot pile or not, or what the adjusted DC of your attempt to swing from the chandelier and punt the BBEG out the window might be - can be interpreted as a completely arbitrary choice on the part of the DM. Your argument absolutely precludes the existence of a DM as a neutral entity who makes decisions to advance the shared group experience of the game (decisions which can both help or hurt the players).

The only way in which the players can EVER be sure that the DM isn't making "arbitrary and capricious" decisions on a totally OOC level is to not have a human DM - with that pesky "free will" thing - in the first place. Your argument starts in a good place ("I want to be sure the DM isn't targeting me OOC"), but there's absolutely no way to stop that from happening as long as there's a DM at the table at all.


Far be it from acting in the way you describe, the default DM's role isn't the option which you outlined above:

"Okay, you brought your ally to the masquerade. That means I'm going to try to kill him." instead of "Okay, you brought your ally to the masquerade. Cool."

Instead, their role is to say something along the lines of:

"Okay, you brought your ally to the masquerade. If the ally takes actions, the NPCs will react appropriately, helping or hindering the ally as the NPCs characterizations dictate. If that results in the death of that ally, that's the risk of bringing him, but he can also help you while he's there."

In short, your arguments assume that the DM MUST be acting against the players, on an OOC level, when making decisions (specifically, regarding decisions re: resource removal, but why stop there?). In the basic context of the thread - Players vs DMs - that works, but I think we've gone further afield into general DMing Theory by now. And in THAT arena, the assumption your argument makes is in itself a fallacy by only assigning one possible rationale to DM actions you disagree with.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 03:32 PM
I thought the context of my post was pretty clear especially considering my earlier statements where I implicitly stated that one playstyle isn't better than another. Harping on word choices like 'should' and ignoring previous context and saying you know what attitude I have seems... Well...

Fair enough. Let's just put that behind us.


You are using absolutes, too. There are some types of stories that cannot be told in any other way except through people dying. Some plot points are dependant on some people dying and there is no other way to do it. Most plots can be told in multiple ways, but to assume all plots can be told without certain deaths is being too absolute. Maybe that is not what you meant, but if I take a single word, ignore context, and run with it...

You're still confusing things that happen "in the story" with things that remove a player's resources. In nWoD, you can kill a player's Ally without actually rendering the Ally merit useless. Maybe there's a new ally that comes to take the dead person's place, or the ally turns out to have faked his death for whatever reason, or maybe he's cloned, resurrected, animated as undead or whatever other story explanation you come up with to maintain the player's resource.

That's why I've said over and over that there's never a story justification to remove a player's resource. You can destroy the wizard's spellbook if it's crucial to the story and absolutely must be done, fine, but that doesn't mean that she can't borrow another spellbook, have a backup copy, be granted a boon by a high-level cleric of the god of magic that allows her to memorise spells without her spellbook, access another wizard's library and so on and so forth. There's a tangible difference between a player's resources and what happens in a story.


The players drive the plot in my games, absolutely. What happens and doesn't happen is based largely on their actions. But the results of their actions, the survival of specific equipment and allies, and their own survival is not based on their desires or whims but their actions as well. You can play differently. But the implied tone of WoD is a fairly fatalistic one and the expected playstyle of D&D is players only having control of their actions. You can play differently, but there is no need to jump on my post which was talking about the implied tone and expected/common playstyles of both games.

You have to realise that what you think WoD or D&D are about is actually just your opinions and impressions of it. It's practically meaningless to say "It's implied that..." or "the expected playstyle is..." because you're not objectively right. That's merely what you think the games are about, just like whatever conclusions you draw from watching a movie. I can think that Twilight is the most vomit-worthy piece of drivvel I've ever laid eyes upon and that doesn't make me right. And saying that when discussing teenage romances is rather useless, since it has absolutely no weight whatsoever in the discussion.

The reason I "jump" on your post is precisely because you keep implying that your way of playing is in accordance to whatever you think is "expected" or "implied" in the game, thereby deeming any differing playstyles as "abnormal" (not saying you used this word, merely giving a name to "outside what's expected or implied").


Shadowknight is there any situation or circumstance that you can think of where removal of a trait from a character is not due to OOC reasons? And can you also come up with a reason why an NPC built, played, and maintained by the GM would need to be removed for OOC reasons simply because its associated with a character sheet as an advantage?

1) No. Like I said, when someone says "It's for story reasons!" I hear "I am presenting a semi-plausible reason to conceal my true motives!" As I said before, whatever reason you can come up with to remove a player's resource can be countered with another story reason why it isn't actually removed at all.

2) You said it yourself: It's associated with a character sheet as an advantage. That's a player's resource. If you want to say "You having this advantage bothers me, therefore I want to remove it," that's one thing. Pretending you're totally fine with it but that the ally has to go "for story reasons" or "because the players put him/her at risk" is simply fallacious, because there's always an alternate path in the story that achieves the same goals and leaves the character's resources intact.


Sorry to butt in on this one, but upon reading the entire thread, I have a question for you.

You DO realize that you're effectively arguing against the existence of a DM at all, right?

No.


Every decision the DM makes - which PC the dragon attacks first, whether there's useful magic items in the loot pile or not, or what the adjusted DC of your attempt to swing from the chandelier and punt the BBEG out the window might be - can be interpreted as a completely arbitrary choice on the part of the DM. Your argument absolutely precludes the existence of a DM as a neutral entity who makes decisions to advance the shared group experience of the game (decisions which can both help or hurt the players).

False. I am presupposing that the DM is a neutral entity who makes decisions to advance the shared group experience of the game. That's precisely why there's never a story reason to remove a resource, because the DM always has the option to do something else instead.


The only way in which the players can EVER be sure that the DM isn't making "arbitrary and capricious" decisions on a totally OOC level is to not have a human DM - with that pesky "free will" thing - in the first place. Your argument starts in a good place ("I want to be sure the DM isn't targeting me OOC"), but there's absolutely no way to stop that from happening as long as there's a DM at the table at all.

False dychotomy. A DM always has the option to remove any resource from any player. Every second he does not do so is making a choice not to do it. Sure, saying that random thieves appear and steal the fighter's sword is less plausible than saying it was sundered in a fight by a clever nemesis, but it's the same OOC result. The player's resource has been removed. Why is it more "acceptable" to remove said resource when the remotion is more plausible? Am I the only one that isn't fooled by the circumstances?


Far be it from acting in the way you describe, the default DM's role isn't the option which you outlined above:

"Okay, you brought your ally to the masquerade. That means I'm going to try to kill him." instead of "Okay, you brought your ally to the masquerade. Cool."

Instead, their role is to say something along the lines of:

"Okay, you brought your ally to the masquerade. If the ally takes actions, the NPCs will react appropriately, helping or hindering the ally as the NPCs characterizations dictate. If that results in the death of that ally, that's the risk of bringing him, but he can also help you while he's there."

It's amazing how people keep arguing the exact same point and blatantly ignoring what I've been repeating ad nauseaum.

Seriously people, stop trying to justify player resource removal with story reasons. Any situation you think can result in that ally's death can be countered by an equally plausible situation where the ally survives.


In short, your arguments assume that the DM MUST be acting against the players, on an OOC level, when making decisions (specifically, regarding decisions re: resource removal, but why stop there?). In the basic context of the thread - Players vs DMs - that works, but I think we've gone further afield into general DMing Theory by now. And in THAT arena, the assumption your argument makes is in itself a fallacy by only assigning one possible rationale to DM actions you disagree with.

No, that's just you misunderstanding what I'm saying. It's like no matter how many times I repeat it, people just don't process it. If the story says that the ally the player brought to the masquerade is attacked by the hidden vampires, that doesn't mean the ally dies. Maybe he gets left for dead, but turns out to have survived. Maybe the ally had the foresight to carry a holy symbol and manages to escape. Maybe he's not savaged, but merely thrown out the window (and, of course, survives the fall). Maybe he IS killed, but returns as a vampire that somehow retains its allegiance to the player. Or he's killed and then another NPC pays for the resurrection.

It's like people think that a story is this unbeatable thing that supersedes the DM. Like it's this entity that just takes over the entire table and the DM can only shrug and say "It wasn't me, it was the story," completely forgetting that DM is always in complete control of what happens. Anything that happens in the story was decided by the DM or the players. If the player didn't decide that his ally died, guess who did? That's right, the DM. Because the story isn't a bogeyman towards which we can shift blame. The story is an abstract concept with no will or intelligence of its own. It can't make decisions. It can't take actions. What people think it's "the natural course of the story" is an illusion. A story can take a million different courses, all perfectly natural and plausible. They might not be immediately obvious, but they exist.

So really, give this matter a rest, because I'm growing extremely tired of repeating myself over and over again.

jindra34
2011-08-28, 03:38 PM
Right so if you bring an associated npc into a situation you know is going to be violent, and as a result of a reasonable portion of the enemies (at most equal to the lowest number attacking a PC) attacking that npc, with all dice rolling and sheets in the open, the npc would die, I should find an excuse at that point for the npc to live. And if players get caught on cameras they knew were there in the process of breaking into a place, I shouldn't make them wanted criminals. Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense Shadowknight.

SowZ
2011-08-28, 03:40 PM
Fair enough. Let's just put that behind us.



You're still confusing things that happen "in the story" with things that remove a player's resources. In nWoD, you can kill a player's Ally without actually rendering the Ally merit useless. Maybe there's a new ally that comes to take the dead person's place, or the ally turns out to have faked his death for whatever reason, or maybe he's cloned, resurrected, animated as undead or whatever other story explanation you come up with to maintain the player's resource.

That's why I've said over and over that there's never a story justification to remove a player's resource. You can destroy the wizard's spellbook if it's crucial to the story and absolutely must be done, fine, but that doesn't mean that she can't borrow another spellbook, have a backup copy, be granted a boon by a high-level cleric of the god of magic that allows her to memorise spells without her spellbook, access another wizard's library and so on and so forth. There's a tangible difference between a player's resources and what happens in a story.



You have to realise that what you think WoD or D&D are about is actually just your opinions and impressions of it. It's practically meaningless to say "It's implied that..." or "the expected playstyle is..." because you're not objectively right. That's merely what you think the games are about, just like whatever conclusions you draw from watching a movie. I can think that Twilight is the most vomit-worthy piece of drivvel I've ever laid eyes upon and that doesn't make me right. And saying that when discussing teenage romances is rather useless, since it has absolutely no weight whatsoever in the discussion.

The reason I "jump" on your post is precisely because you keep implying that your way of playing is in accordance to whatever you think is "expected" or "implied" in the game, thereby deeming any differing playstyles as "abnormal" (not saying you used this word, merely giving a name to "outside what's expected or implied").

Sure. And I said earlier if I kill a players ally, I will give them the opportunity to pick up another one or reallocate the points to something reasonable. If a Fighter loses a +2 Keen Longsword, he will soon pick up another item with +3 enhancements.

Read the DMG, creator commentary, etc. and it is fairly clear that giving players control over when they die, the results of certain actions, etc. is not what was expected. The DMing style you are talking about is abnormal if by abnormal you mean not common. That in no way makes it worse. But it isn't the standard method of play. That's cool. I alter things in the rules which makes certain parts of my games against the playtested and traditional method of play. Your view of a DMs authority is different then the standard/expected DM opinion. Saying it is not the intent or expectation of the designers is not bashing your playstyle.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 03:44 PM
Right so if you bring an associated npc into a situation you know is going to be violent, and as a result of a reasonable portion of the enemies (at most equal to the lowest number attacking a PC) attacking that npc, with all dice rolling and sheets in the open, the npc would die, I should find an excuse at that point for the npc to live. And if players get caught on cameras they knew were there in the process of breaking into a place, I shouldn't make them wanted criminals. Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense Shadowknight.

I bring my sword to violent situations. I bring my gun to violent situations. I bring my spells and skill ranks to violent situations. I bring my ability scores, class levels, gear, merits, Fate Points, experience, feats, advantages, flaws, willpower dots, mana, knowledge, familiar, animal companion, race, template(s), special abilities and background to violent situations. What makes an ally any more acceptable to remove than any of the other things I just listed?

Also, what does them "becoming wanted criminals" has to do with resource removal? How is that removing a resource from the players?


Sure. And I said earlier if I kill a players ally, I will give them the opportunity to pick up another one or reallocate the points to something reasonable. If a Fighter loses a +2 Keen Longsword, he will soon pick up another item with +3 enhancements.

Then you are not removing a player's resources.


Read the DMG, creator commentary, etc. and it is fairly clear that giving players control over when they die, the results of certain actions, etc. is not what was expected. The DMing style you are talking about is abnormal if by abnormal you mean not common. That in no way makes it worse. But it isn't the standard method of play. That's cool. I alter things in the rules which makes certain parts of my games against the playtested and traditional method of play. Your view of a DMs authority is different then the standard/expected DM opinion. Saying it is not the intent or expectation of the designers is not bashing your playstyle.

I won't pursue this argument any longer. It's fairly clear that we have an unavoidable and unsolvable difference in opinions and further discussion of this topic (with you not realising that you are effectively deeming any diverging playstyle as "abnormal" and all the associated discrimination it entails) is beyond my interest.

Swordguy
2011-08-28, 03:47 PM
It's amazing how people keep arguing the exact same point and blatantly ignoring what I've been repeating ad nauseaum.

Seriously people, stop trying to justify player resource removal with story reasons. Any situation you think can result in that ally's death can be countered by an equally plausible situation where the ally survives.

Here's the thing, though...you aren't wrong in that the ally's death can go either way. Sometimes is should go one way, sometimes it should go the other. It never HAS to happen. Having a player lose a resource every time he or she might lose one is certainly both implausible and (dare I say) annoying...but literally being unable to lose a resource under any circumstances is equally as implausible.

Why, specifically, should it never go the direction in which a player loses the resource? I simply do not understand your position wherein you posit that the player should never lose a resource, irrespective of what they are doing with that resource. I do not understand how that is defensible to a group that cares at all about verisimilitude within the game world.

I know you think you've explained it, but I (and, I suspect, others, judging by the thread commentary) aren't processing your argument. As near as I can tell, your chief complaints are that there's a DM that's making an arbitrary decision about it, and that there's always a way to resolve a story without losing that resource. Is that correct?


(As an aside, I believe most folks here aren't saying that player resources are totally disposable and should be taken away at the DM's whim...I think they're saying that player resources should occasionally be taken away under specific circumstances motivated by entirely in-game events; not as a regular thing at all.)

jindra34
2011-08-28, 03:48 PM
I bring my sword to violent situations. I bring my gun to violent situations. I bring my spells and skill ranks to violent situations. I bring my ability scores, class levels, gear, merits, Fate Points, experience, feats, advantages, flaws, willpower dots, mana, knowledge, familiar, animal companion, race, template(s), special abilities and background to violent situations. What makes an ally any more acceptable to remove than any of the other things I just listed?
Partly it being an npc, and partly its ability to act seperately. What I am trying to figure out is if you believe that a npc should be treated differently simply because something on a pc's sheet references it.


Also, what does them "becoming wanted criminals" has to do with resource removal? How is that removing a resource from the players?
Most games have things called social advantages/disadvantages which cover things like legal rights, political standing, and how people look at you.

SowZ
2011-08-28, 03:51 PM
I bring my sword to violent situations. I bring my gun to violent situations. I bring my spells and skill ranks to violent situations. I bring my ability scores, class levels, gear, merits, Fate Points, experience, feats, advantages, flaws, willpower dots, mana, knowledge, familiar, animal companion, race, template(s), special abilities and background to violent situations. What makes an ally any more acceptable to remove than any of the other things I just listed?

Also, what does them "becoming wanted criminals" has to do with resource removal? How is that removing a resource from the players?

Actually, in a game like D&D, all of your resources are targets to be lost temporarily. Ability Damage takes your Str down for a while. Sunder takes your sword out until you can get it fixed. An attack can take away your most precious resource, (life!) and that is how the game works and getting players permission is a derivation of the game. Fine. Derive all you want. But you are calling the general system unfair when you do that, not just taking away specific resources. But the reason all of this exists isn't to screw players it is because it adds risk. Without risk, I don't see how it is very much different then just writing a collaborative novel/freeform. Which I'm cool with. But it isn't the same style of game. It seems like you keep saying you can take out the risk factor and still play the same story and game. But you can't.

The only valid argument I see for it is, 'We don't have as much fun that way, so we play differently.' Good on you, then. Play how you see fit. But it isn't unfair to the players to do it the other way.


I won't pursue this argument any longer. It's fairly clear that we have an unavoidable and unsolvable difference in opinions and further discussion of this topic (with you not realising that you are effectively deeming any diverging playstyle as "abnormal" and all the associated discrimination it entails) is beyond my interest.

There is no discrimination except that which you choose to see. If I watched Star Wars as a movie where Luke is actually a psychotic Bothan who dreams that he is a jedi in a mental asylum on Nar Shadda, that's my perogative. But I am watching the movie different than Lucas envisioned. It isn't wrong for someone else to say, 'that is an abnormal perspective.' It would be wrong if I said, 'You obviously get less enjoyment out of Star Wars because you don't watch it the ordinary way.'

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 03:52 PM
Partly it being an npc, and partly its ability to act seperately. What I am trying to figure out is if you believe that a npc should be treated differently simply because something on a pc's sheet references it.

To be fair, this is just how he personally prefers the games he plays in to behave.

Niek
2011-08-28, 03:57 PM
To me it seems that ShadowKnight considers the story and all such non-mechanical parts of the game exist solely to support its mechanical progression.

What about DM's who make their decisions based on narrative, with the mechanics there solely to facilitate the player's interaction with said narrative?

SowZ
2011-08-28, 03:59 PM
To me it seems that ShadowKnight considers the story and all such non-mechanical parts of the game exist solely to support its mechanical progression.

What about DM's who make their decisions based on narrative, with the mechanics there solely to facilitate the player's interaction with said narrative?

I think his response will be that he shares his GM authority and gives more direct control over it to the players. But that is just speculation based on his posts.

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 04:07 PM
To me it seems that ShadowKnight considers the story and all such non-mechanical parts of the game exist solely to support its mechanical progression.

What about DM's who make their decisions based on narrative, with the mechanics there solely to facilitate the player's interaction with said narrative?

He's coming at it from a particular sort of gamism, imho. The DM is there to provide challenges to be overcome, and providing fun challenges which test his mettle as a player is what the game is about. Story is important, but is secondary to this. Since the challenges need to be calibrated to the player's capabilities, things that mess with player resources can easily muck up this aspect of the game. Therefore, the DM should avoid destroying player resources -- while this is not an absolute rule (and Shadowknight acknowledges this), it is how SK prefers his games to be run.

There's been a lot of confusion in this thread over this discussion, and I think we've been accidentally doing a lot of arguing about how other people are enjoying their game wrong.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 04:23 PM
Here's the thing, though...you aren't wrong in that the ally's death can go either way. Sometimes is should go one way, sometimes it should go the other. It never HAS to happen. Having a player lose a resource every time he or she might lose one is certainly both implausible and (dare I say) annoying...but literally being unable to lose a resource under any circumstances is equally as implausible.

Why, specifically, should it never go the direction in which a player loses the resource? I simply do not understand your position wherein you posit that the player should never lose a resource, irrespective of what they are doing with that resource. I do not understand how that is defensible to a group that cares at all about verisimilitude within the game world.

Because it's the player's resource. It's not the DM's resource. We all already know that the DM has absolute control over the game and what she says, goes. Why does the DM has to exert that control over areas that are not within her purview? Why can't the player (not the character, mind you) make the decision of how to administer his resources? To decide their fates? To say "Okay, I think it'd be awesome if my character's ally was killed, it'd give my character a huge motivation to pursue the villain to the very end" rather than have the DM make that decision for him?


I know you think you've explained it, but I (and, I suspect, others, judging by the thread commentary) aren't processing your argument. As near as I can tell, your chief complaints are that there's a DM that's making an arbitrary decision about it, and that there's always a way to resolve a story without losing that resource. Is that correct?

That is correct. A DM always has the option to further a story without removing a player's resource. If she has the player's permission to remove that resource, she's perfectly within her right to do so.


(As an aside, I believe most folks here aren't saying that player resources are totally disposable and should be taken away at the DM's whim...I think they're saying that player resources should occasionally be taken away under specific circumstances motivated by entirely in-game events; not as a regular thing at all.)


That's irrelevant. It's still removing a player's resource. Frequency or plausibility don't figure into it. It's like saying that "nobody's saying the player has to be punched all the time. He should only be occasionally punched."


Partly it being an npc, and partly its ability to act seperately. What I am trying to figure out is if you believe that a npc should be treated differently simply because something on a pc's sheet references it.

I'm merely saying that an NPC that is on a PC's sheet is exactly like any other resource on the player's sheet. In my games, they're treated just the same as any other NPC in the story, but completely differently outside it. Because outside the story, they're not just any NPC. They're part of the player's sheet.


Most games have things called social advantages/disadvantages which cover things like legal rights, political standing, and how people look at you.

That doesn't mean they're automatically lost. Again, you presuppose that the story is this big meanie that takes away the player's resources. Who says that the DM can't come up with plausible reasons for the players to be wanted criminals and still take advantage of their social advantages? Contacts can be willing to believe the character is innocent and help him out all the same, organisations can be SO thoroughly convinced of the character's innocence they can allow him use of their facilities/resources/etc, while perfectly convinced that "it will all be worked out soon." And so on.


Actually, in a game like D&D, all of your resources are targets to be lost temporarily. Ability Damage takes your Str down for a while. Sunder takes your sword out until you can get it fixed. An attack can take away your most precious resource, (life!) and that is how the game works and getting players permission is a derivation of the game. Fine. Derive all you want. But you are calling the general system unfair when you do that, not just taking away specific resources. But the reason all of this exists isn't to screw players it is because it adds risk. Without risk, I don't see how it is different then just writing a collaborative novel/freeform. Which I'm cool with. But it isn't the same style of game. It seems like you keep saying you can take out the risk factor and still play the same story and game. But you can't.

Yes, I am fully aware. I have, in fact, used that exact same argument myself before. I'm not arguing that my way (not touching a player's resources without their permission) is the right way. I'm arguing that people seem to assume that gear and allies are more "acceptable" targets than any other aspect of the player's character sheet.


The only valid argument I see for it is, 'We don't have as much fun that way, so we play differently.' Good on you, then. Play how you see fit. But it isn't unfair to the players to do it the other way.

I never said it was unfair. I merely said that other playstyles are just as valid, and that no playstyle is "closer to what the system expects or implies" than any other.


To be fair, this is just how he personally prefers the games he plays in to behave.

Thank you.


To me it seems that ShadowKnight considers the story and all such non-mechanical parts of the game exist solely to support its mechanical progression.

What about DM's who make their decisions based on narrative, with the mechanics there solely to facilitate the player's interaction with said narrative?

Not at all. I consider the story to be a non-living entity that can be shaped as the DM and the players will. It's not a cruel tyrant that tells the players and the DM what to do. You are always making decisions based on what makes sense for the narrative. Just because the first course of action you come up ith for your bad guy is "sunder the figher's sword" doesn't mean it doesn't make just as much sense for the narrative to do something else.

And for the record, I consider mechanics to be mere tools in the hands of the players and the DM to solve conflicts, provide win/lose conditions and challenges for the players.

I would explain myself in greater detail, but I can't find a way to do so without implying that my way of playing is "the right one" and everyone should abide by it, because that's the opposite of what I want to say and there's already been some confusion in the matter. So I'll merely say that it's not about the story OR the mechanics. It's about the player/DM dynamic.


I think his response will be that he shares his GM authority and gives more direct control over it to the players. But that is just speculation based on his posts.

Close enough, yes.


He's coming at it from a particular sort of gamism, imho. The DM is there to provide challenges to be overcome, and providing fun challenges which test his mettle as a player is what the game is about. Story is important, but is secondary to this. Since the challenges need to be calibrated to the player's capabilities, things that mess with player resources can easily muck up this aspect of the game. Therefore, the DM should avoid destroying player resources -- while this is not an absolute rule (and Shadowknight acknowledges this), it is how SK prefers his games to be run.

There's been a lot of confusion in this thread over this discussion, and I think we've been accidentally doing a lot of arguing about how other people are enjoying their game wrong.

This is very much true, yes, but it's not 100% correct. I consider the story to be primary. I play games for the story. I honestly couldn't care less about what happens to the player after his resources are removed. I sacrifice my own resources, as a player, all the time. But the key difference is that I sacrifice them. Nobody takes them away from me.

As a gamer, I hold the rights of the people at the table in great regard. What belongs to a player (in my games) is not for the DM to touch without his permission. If the DM says "I'm going to touch your stuff" before the game begins, that's fine. The player is giving his consent by agreeing to play. And likewise, a player saying "You can touch my stuff" is also perfectly fine. What I would have an immense problem in the game, as a player, is a DM telling me OOCly what to do, how to play, messing with aspects of the game that belong to me (like my character sheet) or otherwise involving herself in areas that I have not given her permission to touch.

It's a matter of boundaries, not mechanics or balance. At least to me.

Again, not saying that this is "the right way to play," merely trying to explain where I come from to avoid further confusion.

jindra34
2011-08-28, 04:30 PM
I'm merely saying that an NPC that is on a PC's sheet is exactly like any other resource on the player's sheet. In my games, they're treated just the same as any other NPC in the story, but completely differently outside it. Because outside the story, they're not just any NPC. They're part of the player's sheet.
That is what I was looking for, the assumption of ownership. Treating anything differently in any aspect of the game is making it privileged. And if you treat all of a player's resources as privileged and not to be touched without their consent takes all the teeth out of any threat a GM can make.


That doesn't mean they're automatically lost. Again, you presuppose that the story is this big meanie that takes away the player's resources. Who says that the DM can't come up with plausible reasons for the players to be wanted criminals and still take advantage of their social advantages? Contacts can be willing to believe the character is innocent and help him out all the same, organisations can be SO thoroughly convinced of the character's innocence they can allow him use of their facilities/resources/etc, while perfectly convinced that "it will all be worked out soon." And so on.


I believe I mentioned legal standing as one of the referenced traits. And its seems to me that very few people would consider wanted criminal as equal to freeman.

Swordguy
2011-08-28, 04:31 PM
As a gamer, I hold the rights of the people at the table in great regard. What belongs to a player (in my games) is not for the DM to touch without his permission. If the DM says "I'm going to touch your stuff" before the game begins, that's fine. The player is giving his consent by agreeing to play. And likewise, a player saying "You can touch my stuff" is also perfectly fine. What I would have an immense problem in the game, as a player, is a DM telling me OOCly what to do, how to play, messing with aspects of the game that belong to me (like my character sheet) or otherwise involving herself in areas that I have not given her permission to touch.

It's a matter of boundaries, not mechanics or balance. At least to me.

Again, not saying that this is "the right way to play," merely trying to explain where I come from to avoid further confusion.


Cool, man. Thanks for the explanation. No further issue here, then.

There's a fundamental principle you have upon which I disagree ("the player's resources are inviolate without the player's permission"; in my experience, very few players will give that permission because, story be dammed, they don't want to lose any character power - even in the short term and even if it'll be made up, plus extra, in the long term), but I respect the opinion and I understand the rationale behind it even if I disagree. Plus, you espouse going out of your way ahead of time to ensure the whole group is in accord with how stuff is run...I'm all about that.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify!

Tyndmyr
2011-08-28, 04:40 PM
Having wandered around various boards for a while and seen various complaints about the "DM vs. Players fallacy," I've arrived at a singular question:

Just how many DMs actually DO that sort of stuff?

By which I mean things like, "When making a Pathfinder wizard, always take a familiar for your Arcane Bond. If you take a bonded object, you're just begging your DM to have a monster sunder it in the middle of a fight." "NEVER use Wish. The DM WILL punish you for it." "Always go for natural attacks and Pounce, so your DM can't take you out of the fight by sundering your weapon of choice." "When writing your backstory, DON'T say that you have siblings or parents or any other sort of connection to another person. The DM WILL have the villain kidnap or threaten them at some point." "NEVER sunder anything in a fight. You'll miss out on the loot."

Other times it'll be on the opposite side, advising DM's to utilize any dirty trick possible to keep the players on their toes, such as having enemies burn the wizard's spellbook, or to punish players by throwing them into a challenge that specifically targets a weakness (like an adventure requiring social grace and cunning when the party is geared more towards kick-in-the-door style of play).

It seems like, at the core, the only way to provide a challenge for your players is to pounce on any weakness they have to make things "more interesting" or "more dramatic," and that players, likewise, have to optimize every possible aspect of your character, even story-based ones, to limit the DM's options to screw you over.

I'm guessing that this mentality is probably exagerrated by this at some point, but at the core it's still that "DM vs. Players" mentality, and I'm just not sure how prevalent among DMs that truly is. I mean, there ARE some real examples (Tomb of Horrors or Tucker's Kobolds, for example) but those are usually only one-off instances, rather than an entire campaign.

Has anyone ever resorted to dastardly stuff like this, either as a player by working incredibly hard to avoid any flaws the DM could exploit in your character, or as a DM by resorting to relatively unusual tactics to scare players out of their comfort zone, usually by having a monster break their stuff, or break their own stuff so the PCs can't take it from them?

Plenty of DMs are like this. I've played with a few of them.

That said, I decided to fix it by just not playing with them, since they generally resorted to fiat when they didn't have a rules legal way to take my toys away.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 04:49 PM
That is what I was looking for, the assumption of ownership. Treating anything differently in any aspect of the game is making it privileged. And if you treat all of a player's resources as privileged and not to be touched without their consent takes all the teeth out of any threat a GM can make.

That NPC was already different from any other NPC by virtue of appearing in a PC's character sheet. What's the difference between the Viscount and the character's bard husband? That the bard husband is on the character sheet, as a player resource. There's already a difference there, OOCly, whether you like it or not. It doesn't need to translate into an IC difference, though it may, but you can't deny it exists.

Also, allow me to quote myself, the very first post I made in this thread:


It's a vicious cycle. It doesn't matter where it begins. It can begin by having a player that naturally tends towards optimisation, with a DM that has to work harder to challenge him, and resorts to assaulting every possible weakness because he just doesn't know what else to do; or it can begin with a DM that thinks it's only fun when the players feel fear/tension, not the characters, so he naturally targets stuff the players care about, like a wizard's spellbook, a fighter's favoured weapon, and any weaknesses that can get the players themselves to actually care about the encounters and work their butts off to save their characters from certain doom. That causes players to optimise like mad as a consequence.

Emphasis mine. The "takes all the teeth out of any threat the DM can make" part of your post references that. You are not threatening only the characters. You are threatening the players. Now, in case you read that in an accussatory tone, it's not meant to disparage. That's a perfectly valid way to play and no better or worse than mine. I just want to make the distinction here that you are not merely threatening the characters, but the players as well. It's just as valid to threaten only the characters and let the players care about the threats because they choose to, not because they have to.


I believe I mentioned legal standing as one of the referenced traits. And its seems to me that very few people would consider wanted criminal as equal to freeman.

If an extremely respected member of an organisation came to be suspected by the authorities, there would be quite a few people who'd be more than a little skeptical, at least at first, and the characters could use that in their advantage to continue using their resources. As for legal standing, well, let's just say that paperwork can be slow and mistakes can be made. This can also allow the characters to take advantage of their resources for an extended period of time. And even when they can't do so directly, they always have friends and family who might be willing to go out of their way to assist them, to compensate the loss of one social advantage with another.


Cool, man. Thanks for the explanation. No further issue here, then.

There's a fundamental principle you have upon which I disagree ("the player's resources are inviolate without the player's permission"; in my experience, very few players will give that permission because, story be dammed, they don't want to lose any character power - even in the short term and even if it'll be made up, plus extra, in the long term), but I respect the opinion and I understand the rationale behind it even if I disagree. Plus, you espouse going out of your way ahead of time to ensure the whole group is in accord with how stuff is run...I'm all about that.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify!

No problem, I'm glad to clear things up.

To me, the answer is to find better players, not to inflict upon their rights. But as you said, it's a fundamental difference in opinions. If I don't have players that are willing and eager to play realistic characters (with flaws, losses and tragedy) for the sake of the story, I'd rather not play at all. I don't need to play, after all.

But yeah, I definitely make sure everyone is on the same page before the game begins. Otherwise, unpleasantness occurs.

jindra34
2011-08-28, 05:02 PM
That NPC was already different from any other NPC by virtue of appearing in a PC's character sheet. What's the difference between the Viscount and the character's bard husband? That the bard husband is on the character sheet, as a player resource. There's already a difference there, OOCly, whether you like it or not. It doesn't need to translate into an IC difference, though it may, but you can't deny it exists.
I honestly don't see it. The Viscount's notes exist in my campaign notes and depending on how I list things might be right next to the bard's wife. And if the difference matters then your changing how you act or react to that npc.


Also, allow me to quote myself, the very first post I made in this thread:
Emphasis mine. The "takes all the teeth out of any threat the DM can make" part of your post references that. You are not threatening only the characters. You are threatening the players. Now, in case you read that in an accussatory tone, it's not meant to disparage. That's a perfectly valid way to play and no better or worse than mine. I just want to make the distinction here that you are not merely threatening the characters, but the players as well. It's just as valid to threaten only the characters and let the players care about the threats because they choose to, not because they have to.
True but if there is no chance of failure, and no consequences of failure then why am I having the players spend session time worrying over it, and not over things that will have different results based on how the PCs do things and how well they succeed or fail.



If an extremely respected member of an organisation came to be suspected by the authorities, there would be quite a few people who'd be more than a little skeptical, at least at first, and the characters could use that in their advantage to continue using their resources. As for legal standing, well, let's just say that paperwork can be slow and mistakes can be made. This can also allow the characters to take advantage of their resources for an extended period of time. And even when they can't do so directly, they always have friends and family who might be willing to go out of their way to assist them, to compensate the loss of one social advantage with another.

SO because players forgot about something I mentioned and made a mistake I should make it up to them?

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 05:10 PM
I honestly don't see it. The Viscount's notes exist in my campaign notes and depending on how I list tings might be right next to the bard's wife. And if the difference matters then your changing how you act or react to that npc.

In the story? Nothing changes. Outside the story? Of course it changes. The player has singled out an NPC in your world and said "he's mine." Whether you like it or not, whether you choose to recognise it or not, this difference exists.


True but if there is no chance of failure, and no consequences of failure then why am I having the players spend session time worrying over it, and not over things that will have different results based on how the PCs do things and how well they succeed or fail.

I don't know, why are you doing that? I spend my sessions letting the players choose what to worry about, and working with them to tell a story together.


SO because players forgot about something I mentioned and made a mistake I should make it up to them?

You're taking a player's resource away. Whether you justifiy it to yourself as the players "having brought it upon themselves" or not is irrelevant. As I see it, doing that is no different than saying "Rocks fall, everyone dies, roll up new characters" when they do something that you don't like. I would personally make it up to them, yes, because I have no right to tamper with a player's possessions without her permission.

jindra34
2011-08-28, 05:17 PM
In the story? Nothing changes. Outside the story? Of course it changes. The player has singled out an NPC in your world and said "he's mine." Whether you like it or not, whether you choose to recognise it or not, this difference exists.

On the issue of ownership who owns what in a campaign. Doesn't the GM own at least some of everything due to the fact that they are managing everything.


I don't know, why are you doing that? I spend my sessions letting the players choose what to worry about, and working with them to tell a story together.
I generally due that to. But it does not mean that I worry or play out issues that won't effect the game world.



You're taking a player's resource away. Whether you justifiy it to yourself as the players "having brought it upon themselves" or not is irrelevant. As I see it, doing that is no different than saying "Rocks fall, everyone dies, roll up new characters" when they do something that you don't like. I would personally make it up to them, yes, because I have no right to tamper with a player's possessions without her permission. It comes down to the issue of consequence. If there are never any negative consequences to players actions then there are no risks, and if there are no risks then there should be no rewards.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 05:28 PM
On the issue of ownership who owns what in a campaign. Doesn't the GM own at least some of everything due to the fact that they are managing everything.

The GM owns everything the players don't own. That's the simplest way I can put it. And then the rulebooks tell the players exactly what they own.


I generally due that to. But it does not mean that I worry or play out issues that won't effect the game world.

Huh? I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. My original comment was that you were not only telling a story (and, as a consequence, threatening the characters), but also threatening the players. I'm not saying it's wrong, merely that this is not the only way to game. You can tell a story where characters are threatened, but players never are. To an onlooker that witnessed only the IC parts of the game, there would be no difference.


It comes down to the issue of consequence. If there are never any negative consequences to players actions then there are no risks, and if there are no risks then there should be no rewards.

It seems to me that you are confusing player with characters. A character's actions carry risks, rewards and negative consequences. This is standard for pretty much all stories. That's the basis of conflict, after all.

However, none of this implies that this must necessarily extend to the OOC aspect of the game, and that players must be rewarded or punished for their OOC decisions. This is not necessarily what games are about. I, as a player, would not like the DM to punish or reward me for my actions as a player. That's not why I play and I have never given her permission to do so. That, to me, is a flagrant violation of the social contract. She should have respected that I, as an adult, am fully capable of making decisions for my character, getting involved in the game (with all the worrying, excitement and enjoyment it brings) and working on the story on my own.

She has no right to take it upon herself to force me to do any of those things. She has to trust that I will do so on my own. And if she is dissatisfied with my behaviour, she ought to approach me OOCly and tell me what her problem is, so that we can find a way to solve it, rather than attempting to manipulate me into doing what she wants me to do through the tampering of my resources.

jindra34
2011-08-28, 05:30 PM
How the f does anything that impacts the character affect the players? How would in game actions and changes affect a player?

Please explain the logic behind the player getting threatened by what happens in the game.

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 05:38 PM
How the f does anything that impacts the character affect the players? How would in game actions and changes affect a player?

Please explain the logic behind the player getting threatened by what happens in the game.

Well, that's easy. DM puts a Geas on the character, it impacts the player most significantly by affecting what he can do with his character.

What Shadowknight is basically saying is that there are certain resources that, as part of the social contract, the player agrees are "inter-actable" with the world. Hit Points are a resource like this, and it is agreed that there are conditions under which they may be temporarily removed (as well actions a player might do to undo this). Temporary ability damage and other things like that fall into this. Character death is part of this (though at this point or many others a player could also decide to devote some roughly equivalent amount of resources into a new character in principle and give up their old character).

This is very different from something the DM might do to permanently damage the resource pool of a player, especially to get the player to do something they don't want to do. Tons of ways a DM can railroad doing this.


This is very much true, yes, but it's not 100% correct. I consider the story to be primary. I play games for the story. I honestly couldn't care less about what happens to the player after his resources are removed. I sacrifice my own resources, as a player, all the time. But the key difference is that I sacrifice them. Nobody takes them away from me.

With all do respect, when push comes to shove, you hold that a player's decisions regarding his permanent resources are paramount over ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, including story. So that is more primary than story for you.

To be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with this view. Just making a technical point.

jindra34
2011-08-28, 05:42 PM
Well, that's easy. DM puts a Geas on the character, it impacts the player most significantly by affecting what he can do with his character.

What Shadowknight is basically saying is that there are certain resources that, as part of the social contract, the player agrees are "inter-actable" with the world. Hit Points are a resource like this, and it is agreed that there are conditions under which they may be temporarily removed (as well actions a player might do to undo this). Temporary ability damage and other things like that fall into this. Character death is part of this (though at this point or many others a player could also decide to devote some roughly equivalent amount of resources into a new character in principle and give up their old character).

This is very different from something the DM might do to permanently damage the resource pool of a player, especially to get the player to do something they don't want to do. Tons of ways a DM can railroad doing this.

That still doesn't seem to explain Shadowknight's view. He seems to be acting like actions in the game will make people act differently outside of it or otherwise change their life.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 05:46 PM
How the f does anything that impacts the character affect the players? How would in game actions and changes affect a player?

Please explain the logic behind the player getting threatened by what happens in the game.

If your player in nWoD cares about her character's Mentor and the Mentor runs the risk of being killed, you're impacting the player along with the character. If the player is told that the Mentor will be fine, the player is free to RP the character's worry for her Mentor knowing that he'll be fine.

If your player in D&D cares about her wizard's spells (because they are her most prized resources), and you send a thief to steal her spellbook, you're affecting the player and the character simultaneously. If you tell the player not to worry, that her character will get the spellbook back before the next session, you're giving her the freedom to RP her character's worry knowing that she'll get her spellbook back soon enough.

There's a difference between what happens in the story, to the characters, and what happens outside the story, to the players.


Well, that's easy. DM puts a Geas on the character, it impacts the player most significantly by affecting what he can do with his character.

What Shadowknight is basically saying is that there are certain resources that, as part of the social contract, the player agrees are "inter-actable" with the world. Hit Points are a resource like this, and it is agreed that there are conditions under which they may be temporarily removed (as well actions a player might do to undo this). Temporary ability damage and other things like that fall into this. Character death is part of this (though at this point or many others a player could also decide to devote some roughly equivalent amount of resources into a new character in principle and give up their old character).

This is very different from something the DM might do to permanently damage the resource pool of a player, especially to get the player to do something they don't want to do. Tons of ways a DM can railroad doing this.

This, pretty much.

EDIT:


With all do respect, when push comes to shove, you hold that a player's decisions regarding his permanent resources are paramount over ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, including story. That's more primary than story for you.

No, actually, because the story can always carry on just fine without the player's resources being removed. The story is never a concern at all. If there was a case where the story absolutely necessitated the permanent and unavoidable removal of a character's resource (not saying that such a thing exists, but if it did), then I would inform this to the player and politely ask her permission to remove her resources, and offer appropriate compensation in the form of another kind of resource. The story would, in fact, take precedence. I am merely positing that this situation does not exist in reality.

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 05:51 PM
No, actually, because the story can always carry on just fine without the player's resources being removed. The story is never a concern at all. If there was a case where the story absolutely necessitated the permanent and unavoidable removal of a character's resource (not saying that such a thing exists, but if it did), then I would inform this to the player and politely ask her permission to remove her resources, and offer appropriate compensation in the form of another kind of resource. The story would, in fact, take precedence. I am merely positing that this situation does not exist in reality.

And if the player refused the offer?

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 05:54 PM
And if the player refused the offer?

Assuming that there's no other way for the story to progress (and I continue to insist that in reality, there will always be another way), I would tell her that I have a problem and no solutions, and ask her to come up with a way to solve it. She's as much of a storyteller as me in the game, and just becasue I value the story above my own resources (as a player) doesn't mean she does, and I have to respect her input as a fellow storyteller.

Provengreil
2011-08-28, 05:55 PM
If your player in nWoD cares about her character's Mentor and the Mentor runs the risk of being killed, you're impacting the player along with the character. If the player is told that the Mentor will be fine, the player is free to RP the character's worry for her Mentor knowing that he'll be fine.

If your player in D&D cares about her wizard's spells (because they are her most prized resources), and you send a thief to steal her spellbook, you're affecting the player and the character simultaneously. If you tell the player not to worry, that her character will get the spellbook back before the next session, you're giving her the freedom to RP her character's worry knowing that she'll get her spellbook back soon enough.

There's a difference between what happens in the story, to the characters, and what happens outside the story, to the players.


Ah, here we go. Can't speak for anyone else, but this is a fundamental difference between the way you see this and I do. Both of us are willing to let the player keep/regain the spellbook. You disarm the tension at the table, whereas I savor it. (note: in the specific case of a spellbook, the player will always get it back because the spellbook is EVERYTHING to a wizard. not just a lot, it is the source of absolutely every spell he's got. that's too much to lose for more than a few hours of real time.)

For the mentor, if the enemy's targets get set on him, he might live, he might die. it depends on whether the players can stop it. If they do, he lives and is safe. if they don't, there is a chance he dies, and a chance he escapes.

you might consider it method acting. we(my group) try to immerse ourselves and become our characters as much as possible; not just try to tell the story but feel it as well. this works better when they really don't know if the old man's gonna live.

jindra34
2011-08-28, 05:56 PM
No, actually, because the story can always carry on just fine without the player's resources being removed. The story is never a concern at all. If there was a case where the story absolutely necessitated the permanent and unavoidable removal of a character's resource (not saying that such a thing exists, but if it did), then I would inform this to the player and politely ask her permission to remove her resources, and offer appropriate compensation in the form of another kind of resource. The story would, in fact, take precedence. I am merely positing that this situation does not exist in reality.

So if I can't remove it without the player's permission, what happens if the resource and the players for one reason or another fail to deal with that threat? Do I then have to again ask for the players permission to do remove it?

Amphetryon
2011-08-28, 05:57 PM
Late to the party, but I think I've read through the whole thing carefully enough to comment.


If I don't have players that are willing and eager to play realistic characters (with flaws, losses and tragedy) for the sake of the story, I'd rather not play at all. I don't need to play, after all. Shadowknight12: given the argument you've made (paraphrased) that there's no loss you could inflict upon the characters in the narrative that you could not also prevent in the narrative, I'm very confused as to why their "losses and tragedy" are at all requirements for your espoused playstyle. You have argued at every turn that the story need not inflict these losses on the characters, after all.

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 06:00 PM
Assuming that there's no other way for the story to progress (and I continue to insist that in reality, there will always be another way), I would tell her that I have a problem and no solutions, and ask her to come up with a way to solve it. She's as much of a storyteller as me in the game, and just becasue I value the story above my own resources (as a player) doesn't mean she does, and I have to respect her input as a fellow storyteller.

In other words, when the story and player's choice on his permanent resources conflict, you adjust the story. You either come up with a way to do this on your own, or have the player find a solution. Writing the story around the player's choice is ok, but never, ever should what happens to those permanent resources actually be determined by the story without the player's consent.

That's pretty explicitly says that player consent is the more important of the two. Again, nothing wrong with that, but it is worth being aware of.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 06:40 PM
Ah, here we go. Can't speak for anyone else, but this is a fundamental difference between the way you see this and I do. Both of us are willing to let the player keep/regain the spellbook. You disarm the tension at the table, whereas I savor it. (note: in the specific case of a spellbook, the player will always get it back because the spellbook is EVERYTHING to a wizard. not just a lot, it is the source of absolutely every spell he's got. that's too much to lose for more than a few hours of real time.)

For the mentor, if the enemy's targets get set on him, he might live, he might die. it depends on whether the players can stop it. If they do, he lives and is safe. if they don't, there is a chance he dies, and a chance he escapes.

you might consider it method acting. we(my group) try to immerse ourselves and become our characters as much as possible; not just try to tell the story but feel it as well. this works better when they really don't know if the old man's gonna live.

I understand precisely where you come from. However, I have to say that to me, there is a clear line that separates a player or DM from the characters. That line is as solid as wall of bricks to me.

And yes, I actually consider method acting to be morally abhorrent, in fact. Whenever I see in a "Behind the Scenes" or interview that an actor was actually scared/in pain/etc in a scene, I feel frank disgust. An actor is completely separate than his character, and he shouldn't be startled without his consent so that the director can get a more genuine reaction.

That's my opinion, however. I don't really hold it against anyone to like method acting (it's none of my business), so please don't start an argument over that as well. I've already had it before in another thread.


So if I can't remove it without the player's permission, what happens if the resource and the players for one reason or another fail to deal with that threat? Do I then have to again ask for the players permission to do remove it?

I already explained that. In reality, you will always have an alternative to further the story without having to remove their resources. And even if the story calls for something to be destroyed or killed, you can always replace it, bring it back and so forth. A story that necessitates the absolute and permanent destruction of the actual resource is non-existant. And if you are someone who prefers to remove resources, just announce this to the players before the game begins, and you have their implicit permission to do so if they've agreed to play.


Late to the party, but I think I've read through the whole thing carefully enough to comment.

Shadowknight12: given the argument you've made (paraphrased) that there's no loss you could inflict upon the characters in the narrative that you could not also prevent in the narrative, I'm very confused as to why their "losses and tragedy" are at all requirements for your espoused playstyle. You have argued at every turn that the story need not inflict these losses on the characters, after all.

Because there's a difference between a DM inflicting loss and tragedy on the character and the player choosing to have her character suffer loss and tragedy. I like stories where the character suffer losses and I like tragedies (more precisely, I prefer extremely bleak tragedies with happy endings. Though I digress). However, I would not inflict that on the characters myself. I would find players that shared my same tastes and did those things on their own without me having to infringe on their rights.


In other words, when the story and player's choice on his permanent resources conflict, you adjust the story. You either come up with a way to do this on your own, or have the player find a solution. Writing the story around the player's choice is ok, but never, ever should what happens to those permanent resources actually be determined by the story without the player's consent.

That's pretty explicitly says that player consent is the more important of the two. Again, nothing wrong with that, but it is worth being aware of.

Actually, I don't see it that way. I care about the story, but I understand that I am not the sole creator of the story, and that it is unfair for me to make certain decisions all on my own. When a problem arises and I don't know what to do, I ask for input from the rest of the table. The thing is that this is never an issue because the story never makes such demands.

The story is determined by the players and the DMs. If the story is going in a certain direction and someone doesn't like it, it gets changed. There is no such thing as "determined by the story" because the story is not a sentient thing. The story is determined by the storyteller. It goes wherever the storyeller wills. It's like a car. You don't say that the car killed someone. You say that the driver killed someone. You don't blame the inanimate object, you blame the person that controls it. You can't say that the person was killed because "it was determined by the car." The car has no will of its own. It doesn't determine anything. If it's going in a certain direction and you don't like that direction, you make the car go elsewhere. There are always plenty of different ways to arrive to any location.

Pigkappa
2011-08-28, 06:50 PM
RPGs are game of conflict. If you are in a plot involving attacks from werewolves and the PCs can't be affected by lycanthropy, that's going to be a quite boring story. Unless you are running a nonconventional game, the players should be ready to face risks which might seriously cripple their characters (possibly for a long time, or permanently) or even kill them.

The DM is the one making up the story, except for the characters' actions. The players choose their characters' action to try and influence the story in a way they like. But it's definitely unusual to ask them what it is they want to happen out of game ("do you want the werewolves to win or lose?"). That would make it too easier for them; there's little fun on the long run if there's no chance to fail.

jindra34
2011-08-28, 06:51 PM
Honestly Shadowknight I can't think of ANY system that doesn't explicitly in the rules break your expectations of social contract. The closest is the FATE system which allows you every so often to make that kind of choice but costs you major chances to do awesome stuff later. And I agree with the poster way up there who said why do your games need a GM if everything bad that happens to players requires their consent and compensation.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 07:10 PM
RPGs are game of conflict. If you are in a plot involving attacks from werewolves and the PCs can't be affected by lycanthropy, that's going to be a quite boring story. Unless you are running a nonconventional game, the players should be ready to face risks which might seriously cripple their characters (possibly for a long time, or permanently) or even kill them.

The DM is the one making up the story, except for the characters' actions. The players choose their characters' action to try and influence the story in a way they like. But it's definitely unusual to ask them what it is they want to happen out of game ("do you want the werewolves to win or lose?"). That would make it too easier for them; there's little fun on the long run if there's no chance to fail.

We have different definitions of fun.


Honestly Shadowknight I can't think of ANY system that doesn't explicitly in the rules break your expectations of social contract. The closest is the FATE system which allows you every so often to make that kind of choice but costs you major chances to do awesome stuff later. And I agree with the poster way up there who said why do your games need a GM if everything bad that happens to players requires their consent and compensation.

Emphasis mine.

You keep thinking that bad things are supposed to happen to the players rather than merely to the characters. I'm saying this need not be the case.

erikun
2011-08-28, 07:17 PM
Its Knaight (Nate), not Knight (Nite). Sorry, its a bit of a pet peeve.
Sorry. Fixed, for what it matters.


You DO realize that you're effectively arguing against the existence of a DM at all, right?
To be fair, there are some games that mostly do away with the DM, either by strongly limiting what the DM can actually do or completely removing one. However, I do think that if your game is going to have a DM, part of that involves trusting your DM not to simply rule based on a whim.

Sure, the DM can just take away the character's sword or arm or whatever, but that's just bad DMing.


That's why I've said over and over that there's never a story justification to remove a player's resource.
I would prefer to say that there can always be a story justification for not removing a player's resource.


A character's actions carry risks, rewards and negative consequences.
Sorry for being confused, but could you perhaps provide an example of this? Because if the player is making the decision of what the character is capable or incapable of losing, then at what point is there any risk of a negative consequence happening to the character?

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 07:18 PM
Actually, I don't see it that way. I care about the story, but I understand that I am not the sole creator of the story, and that it is unfair for me to make certain decisions all on my own. When a problem arises and I don't know what to do, I ask for input from the rest of the table. The thing is that this is never an issue because the story never makes such demands.

The story is determined by the players and the DMs. If the story is going in a certain direction and someone doesn't like it, it gets changed. There is no such thing as "determined by the story" because the story is not a sentient thing. The story is determined by the storyteller. It goes wherever the storyeller wills. It's like a car. You don't say that the car killed someone. You say that the driver killed someone. You don't blame the inanimate object, you blame the person that controls it. You can't say that the person was killed because "it was determined by the car." The car has no will of its own. It doesn't determine anything. If it's going in a certain direction and you don't like that direction, you make the car go elsewhere. There are always plenty of different ways to arrive to any location.

I'm not saying you don't care about story. One can care about multiple things very easily. One can care a great deal about multiple things. I am saying you place player control over his personal resources on a higher pedestal. If one player kind of doesn't like losing control of something, then that story doesn't happen, even if everyone else at the table really loves the idea. If a player makes a bad decision that would logically lead to say, losing an item that part of their power is in for a time, then if the player doesn't like that the story must change. Even if it hurts verisimilitude, a top notch narrative, or the like.

Now, maybe you avoid that direct conflict most of the time by avoiding any kind of potential story that would bring that about.

Essentially, if you have a conflict between "what makes for the best story" vs. "what does a player want to do with his resources", you ALWAYS go with the latter. Now, I am sure you have a lot of tricks to try to head this problem off at the pass, but that's just another example of how player choice trumps story. Saying that there is nothing such as "determined by the story" is a perfect statement of this.

Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. No more than having story trump player resource choices. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Both have vast reasonable grounds and potential horrible extremes. The trick with either is avoiding the latter.


Sorry for being confused, but could you perhaps provide an example of this? Because if the player is making the decision of what the character is capable or incapable of losing, then at what point is there any risk of a negative consequence happening to the character?

If the players are trying to save a kingdom, then they can lose a conflict and have the kingdom fall. If they are trying to save a friend, he can die. There are tons of ways to have losses without players losing the personal resources of their characters. It's a little trickier if the players/characters are sociopaths, but not impossible. Also, characters can own things that aren't true resources in a game sense.

A player can even have a character die. Then perhaps they have to roll a new one up. The resources the PLAYER has doesn't have to change there.

Amphetryon
2011-08-28, 07:21 PM
Because there's a difference between a DM inflicting loss and tragedy on the character and the player choosing to have her character suffer loss and tragedy. I like stories where the character suffer losses and I like tragedies (more precisely, I prefer extremely bleak tragedies with happy endings. Though I digress). However, I would not inflict that on the characters myself. I would find players that shared my same tastes and did those things on their own without me having to infringe on their rights.
Your own commentary on the matter disagrees that there's a difference in choice, as you've said the only way a DM should ever remove something (for your preferred playstyle) is with the express consent of the player who runs the character.

erikun
2011-08-28, 07:31 PM
If the players are trying to save a kingdom, then they can lose a conflict and have the kingdom fall. If they are trying to save a friend, he can die. There are tons of ways to have losses without players losing the personal resources of their characters. It's a little trickier if the players/characters are sociopaths, but not impossible. Also, characters can own things that aren't true resources in a game sense.
But that's not a risk to the character; that's simply a predetermined loss. The only difference between that and the "DM kills ally" is the agent delivering the loss. There is no chance or risk that the character is facing. The character is simply put into the scenario, and receives the conclusion once it is finished.

Even your examples - a friend's death, the death of the character - are related to the character, and thus wouldn't be removed without the player specifically choosing to do so.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 07:36 PM
I would prefer to say that there can always be a story justification for not removing a player's resource.

Fine, that is a better way of putting it.


Sorry for being confused, but could you perhaps provide an example of this? Because if the player is making the decision of what the character is capable or incapable of losing, then at what point is there any risk of a negative consequence happening to the character?

When the player makes the decision for the character to run a risk and suffer a negative consequence? Are you aware that not every player is averse to anything wrong happening to their character? That there are some people that are more than willing to have their characters suffer losses and negative consequences? If I want my character to risk it all for love and then be rejected by his beloved, that's a risk he ran and a negative consequence he suffered. Or if I want my character to sacrifice himself to hold back a tide of darkness as the others flee, that's a choice I'm making that will carry a negative consequence for my character. The only difference is that I, as a player, decided that it would happen.


I'm not saying you don't care about story. One can care about multiple things very easily. One can care a great deal about multiple things. I am saying you place player control over his personal resources on a higher pedestal. If one player kind of doesn't like losing control of something, then that story doesn't happen, even if everyone else at the table really loves the idea. If a player makes a bad decision that would logically lead to say, losing an item that part of their power is in for a time, then if the player doesn't like that the story must change. Even if it hurts verisimilitude, a top notch narrative, or the like.

Now, maybe you avoid that direct conflict most of the time by avoiding any kind of potential story that would bring that about.

Essentially, if you have a conflict between "what makes for the best story" vs. "what does a player want to do with his resources", you ALWAYS go with the latter. Now, I am sure you have a lot of tricks to try to head this problem off at the pass, but that's just another example of how player choice trumps story. Saying that there is nothing such as "determined by the story" is a perfect statement of this.

Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. No more than having story trump player resource choices. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Both have vast reasonable grounds and potential horrible extremes. The trick with either is avoiding the latter.

But it's got nothing to do with the player's resources. I could have my player's character be raped and that does not cause her to lose any resource of her character sheet, or I could have my other player's character endure incredibly detailed torture, which also does not cause her to lose any resource on her character sheet.

When I say that something does not happen in the story if a player doesn't want it to happen, it doesn't have a lick to do with her resources. It's got to do with the fact that she's writing this story with me and her desires are just as valid as mine. She might be more than willing to have her character stripped of every last resource, but she'll tell me "I don't want the orcs to win that battle, it's too unfair! That army can't lose, not after everything they've been through!" and the orcs don't win because it's important for her.


Your own commentary on the matter disagrees that there's a difference in choice, as you've said the only way a DM should ever remove something (for your preferred playstyle) is with the express consent of the player who runs the character.

Where's the disagreement? I said that the only way a DM should ever remove a player's resource is with their consent. I expect that the players will sacrifice their own resources if they believe it will enhance the story.


But that's not a risk to the character; that's simply a predetermined loss. The only difference between that and the "DM kills ally" is the agent delivering the loss. There is no chance or risk that the character is facing. The character is simply put into the scenario, and receives the conclusion once it is finished.

Even your examples - a friend's death, the death of the character - are related to the character, and thus wouldn't be removed without the player specifically choosing to do so.

The agent delivering the loss is the entire point. There is a world of difference between the DM saying "Your ally dies" and the player saying "my ally dies."

Pigkappa
2011-08-28, 07:36 PM
A player can even have a character die. Then perhaps they have to roll a new one up. The resources the PLAYER has doesn't have to change there.

That's always an option. When a character is affected by lycanthropy and eventually becomes unplayable (e.g. in D&D this is quite likely if you don't heal him as soon as possible), he doesn't have to suffer the loss forever. He can act as if he were dead and roll a new character.

If an opponent cuts off a character's hands (I once did this!) and the DM doesn't allow him to roll a new character, the player can rightfully become mad. But every RPG assumes that you can make a new character, so the worse thing that can really happen to you is death. Except in D&D where having 2 or more levels drained is potentially worse than death from the player's perspective, but that's just bad design.



When I say that something does not happen in the story if a player doesn't want it to happen, it doesn't have a lick to do with her resources. It's got to do with the fact that she's writing this story with me and her desires are just as valid as mine. She might be more than willing to have her character stripped of every last resource, but she'll tell me "I don't want the orcs to win that battle, it's too unfair! That army can't lose, not after everything they've been through!" and the orcs don't win because it's important for her.

Well, this is ok, but totally different from all the RPGs I know. The DM makes up most of the story, and the PCs try to influence it in character.

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 07:38 PM
But that's not a risk to the character; that's simply a predetermined loss. The only difference between that and the "DM kills ally" is the agent delivering the loss. There is no chance or risk that the character is facing. The character is simply put into the scenario, and receives the conclusion once it is finished.

Even your examples - a friend's death, the death of the character - are related to the character, and thus wouldn't be removed without the player specifically choosing to do so.

Things RELATED to the character can be removed just fine. RESOURCES cannot be removed. There's a difference. The family dog isn't a RESOURCE, but it is something character related.

Those sorts of loses I mentioned, I meant them as the players have a challenge in combat or whatever. If they lose, the kingdom/uncle/non-resource ally/dog/favorite public fountain/little sister dies or is stolen or is otherwise lost/damaged. If they win, then that doesn't happen.

These are losses to the characters. They are losses in the story. That doesn't mean they have to be losses in terms of RESOURCES WRITTEN ON THE CHARACTER SHEET.

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 07:41 PM
Ok, I take back what I was saying. Apparently, Shadowknight doesn't want anything bad to happen in the story unless it is OK'd by all players affected.

Hmm.

What the heck do you do if two players disagree then? How do you resolve that conflict? That's typically the point of a conflict resolution mechanic, but if you can't actually LOSE anything if you don't want to, then such a mechanic can't work.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 07:47 PM
Ok, I take back what I was saying. Apparently, Shadowknight doesn't want anything bad to happen in the story unless it is OK'd by all players affected.

That is correct. The way I see it, the players are there to have fun, when they could be doing a ton of things with their free time. If I'm not guaranteeing their fun, and instead I am actively causing them to have a bad time, what's the point for them to be sitting at the table?


Hmm.

What the heck do you do if two players disagree then? How do you resolve that conflict? That's typically the point of a conflict resolution mechanic, but if you can't actually LOSE anything if you don't want to, then such a mechanic can't work.

I bargain. I offer different alternatives to the players, entice one player to accept something in exchange for receiving a benefit elsewhere, offer alternatives that can satisfy both, and attempt to reach a compromise.

If all fails, I submit it to table vote. I abstain to vote unless there is a tie. Players are always informed that this is a risk if they don't come to an agreement on their own. That's why I try to do anything in my power to prevent having to call to a vote.

erikun
2011-08-28, 07:49 PM
When the player makes the decision for the character to run a risk and suffer a negative consequence? Are you aware that not every player is averse to anything wrong happening to their character? That there are some people that are more than willing to have their characters suffer losses and negative consequences? If I want my character to risk it all for love and then be rejected by his beloved, that's a risk he ran and a negative consequence he suffered. Or if I want my character to sacrifice himself to hold back a tide of darkness as the others flee, that's a choice I'm making that will carry a negative consequence for my character. The only difference is that I, as a player, decided that it would happen.
But there is no risk. In no way is the player saying, "I will bring my ally to the assassin ball, knowing that they may be killed, but taking the chance that they will not." Rather, the player is saying "My ally will die at the ball," or "My ally will survive the ball."

The method certainly makes for a good storytelling situation, where all the players tell the how their character progresses along the story. It doesn't seem to have many aspects of a game, though.


Hmm, I wonder what an optimized system for that would look like. (Or if it already exists?) You'd want to provide a variety of base statistics, make equal options with equal costs, and include some kind of stat-redistribution mechanics. What else...?

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 07:51 PM
ShadowKnight, you should buy Universalis. (http://ramshead.indie-rpgs.com/) You're playing a hackneyed version of it already.

erikun
2011-08-28, 07:56 PM
Hmm, I wonder what an optimized system for that would look like. (Or if it already exists?) You'd want to provide a variety of base statistics, make equal options with equal costs, and include some kind of stat-redistribution mechanics. What else...?

ShadowKnight, you should buy Universalis. (http://ramshead.indie-rpgs.com/) You're playing a hackneyed version of it already.
Hah! Ask and ye shall receive, I guess.

I'm curious; how does that game play?

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 08:07 PM
Hah! Ask and ye shall receive, I guess.

I'm curious; how does that game play?

Its really fun. I haven't played it in years since it was a friend of mine that owned it (and that got all blown to hell when he asked a girl out that was moving in with him -- a couple were moving in, both friends of his -- even though he was living with his girlfriend at the time). Well, that's neither here nor there.

Basically everyone gets coins at the beginning of a game. Spend a coin and you make a fact about the game. You start off with facts about the game world, genre, etc. A fact could be "this is a steampunk game", another could be "set in the American Revolutionary War", another could be "There are dragons", etc, etc. People can object and there's a bidding process to resolve that if a compromise can't be reached. You can technically object to ANYTHING, IIRC.

Characters are made similarly. Killing a character requires buying off ALL facts about him. So if a fact is "broken leg" or "mutilated face", you have to buy that off. That is, the more injured someone is, the more narrative force they have and the harder it is to get rid of them. By default you have control of any character you create, but people can pay a coin to take control. Of course, you could easily make house rules about that (by spending a coin, of course!)

There's a resolution mechanic for conflicts as well, of course. Oh, and there's no DM, everyone is equal.

Overall it was a blast to play and I enjoyed it everytime. I should buy it and try it with my new group sometime.

Edit: There's a default coin refresh rule. This can be modified by spending a coin, or you could spend a coin for "everyone to get 10 coins" or something if people are running lower than you'd like. If no one objects to something said with a coin, it is good to go, essentially.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 08:09 PM
But there is no risk. In no way is the player saying, "I will bring my ally to the assassin ball, knowing that they may be killed, but taking the chance that they will not." Rather, the player is saying "My ally will die at the ball," or "My ally will survive the ball."

False dychotomy. You could have the third option, which is "The player doesn't care if their ally lives or dies" and the fourth option, which is "the player doesn't mind if their ally lives or dies because they want to be surprised by the DM and have explicitly told him so."


The method certainly makes for a good storytelling situation, where all the players tell the how their character progresses along the story. It doesn't seem to have many aspects of a game, though.

That dychotomy you listed? Perhaps. Add in the two other options I just cited and that is most certainly a game.


Hmm, I wonder what an optimized system for that would look like. (Or if it already exists?) You'd want to provide a variety of base statistics, make equal options with equal costs, and include some kind of stat-redistribution mechanics. What else...?

I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.


ShadowKnight, you should buy Universalis. (http://ramshead.indie-rpgs.com/) You're playing a hackneyed version of it already.

Thanks, I'll look into it! :smallsmile:

erikun
2011-08-28, 08:29 PM
False dychotomy. You could have the third option, which is "The player doesn't care if their ally lives or dies" and the fourth option, which is "the player doesn't mind if their ally lives or dies because they want to be surprised by the DM and have explicitly told him so."
True, although I didn't mean to present it as a dichotomy.

Adding "Don't Care" to the Yes/No options doesn't really change anything, because while the player is not making the (now arbitrary) decision, they clearly do not care about what happens to the resource.

Stating that they wish to be surprised is not the same thing and presenting a risk, because there still is no risk present; any possible negative outcome (such as losing the resource) is through random chance or arbitrary decision, and has no relation to the benefit or reward gained.


That dychotomy you listed? Perhaps. Add in the two other options I just cited and that is most certainly a game.
There is still no risk involved. They get the same benefit as if they choose to not allow the resource to be lost. They've just decided to throw the resource's survivability to random chance, or another person's decisions.


I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.
Sorry, I was randomly musing to myself on another topic. Feel free to ignore.

Amphetryon
2011-08-28, 08:37 PM
Stating that they wish to be surprised is not the same thing and presenting a risk, because there still is no risk present; any possible negative outcome (such as losing the resource) is through random chance or arbitrary decision, and has no relation to the benefit or reward gained.
I would go so far as to argue that any outcome which the players profess not to care about cannot, per force, have negative consequences. Negative consequences you don't care about, aren't negative.

erikun
2011-08-28, 08:42 PM
I would go so far as to argue that any outcome which the players profess not to care about cannot, per force, have negative consequences. Negative consequences you don't care about, aren't negative.
It would be a negative consequence for the character, although not for the player. Shadowknight has commented that there should not be any negative consequences for the player. [EDIT] ...in his preferred playstyle.

I would say that it isn't a meaningful consequence for the player, one way or another, because the player has stated that they don't care about the outcome. My gaming philosophy, though, is that decisions without meaning outcomes aren't really decisions at all.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 09:24 PM
True, although I didn't mean to present it as a dichotomy.

Adding "Don't Care" to the Yes/No options doesn't really change anything, because while the player is not making the (now arbitrary) decision, they clearly do not care about what happens to the resource.

That's a tautology. "Adding don't care [means that] they clearly do not care about what happens to the resource." Obviously. That's what "Don't care" means. Why does that not change anything? It offers an alternative that is completely different from the Yes or No alternatives. Why is it somehow invalid or not worth considering? Is there something inherently wrong with not caring about one's own possessions?


Stating that they wish to be surprised is not the same thing and presenting a risk, because there still is no risk present; any possible negative outcome (such as losing the resource) is through random chance or arbitrary decision, and has no relation to the benefit or reward gained.

There is still no risk involved. They get the same benefit as if they choose to not allow the resource to be lost. They've just decided to throw the resource's survivability to random chance, or another person's decisions.

Wait. Are you defining "risk" by "There is a chance the player (not the character) will suffer unpleasantness at the table"? Because the way I see it, a player that is actively happy no matter what happens to her ally (because if the ally survives, she keeps enjoying his company, if the ally dies, she feels inspired to roleplay her character's grief) is still running a risk according to my definition of the word, since (again) just because the character suffers a negative consequence doesn't mean it must extend to the player.

What's the point in playing a game if there's a risk that I, the player, might stop having a good time? Why shouldn't I be reading a book or watching a movie or hiking through the woods instead, since I know I won't stop having a good time engaging in those activities?


I would go so far as to argue that any outcome which the players profess not to care about cannot, per force, have negative consequences. Negative consequences you don't care about, aren't negative.

Yes, and this a problem why? Why are negative consequences supposed to be for the players too? Why are the players being punished for playing the game?


It would be a negative consequence for the character, although not for the player. Shadowknight has commented that there should not be any negative consequences for the player. [EDIT] ...in his preferred playstyle.

That is correct. Negative consequences for a character are fine. Negative consequences for a player (with the obvious exception in the case that the player wants to experience them, of course. After all, people do gamble money and make bets, and those carry the risk of negative consequences for the gambler) are not part of my preferred playstyle.


I would say that it isn't a meaningful consequence for the player, one way or another, because the player has stated that they don't care about the outcome. My gaming philosophy, though, is that decisions without meaning outcomes aren't really decisions at all.

Why is it not meaningful? What is, in fact, meaningful? If I give a rose to a girl I like (and I don't know if she likes me back), is it more meaningful than giving the same rose to a girl I know for sure likes me back? Why is meaning tied to the possibility of suffering a negative consequence? Is there no meaning, then, in being a writer? After all, the writer knows exactly what's going to happen at every single point of the story. There is no risk in writing (though there might be a risk in publishing). Is there no meaning in re-watching a movie or re-reading a book? After all, there's no risk in either, because I already know what's going to happen.

I think I highly disagree with you on what "meaningful" is.

Amphetryon
2011-08-28, 09:42 PM
Yes, and this a problem why? Why are negative consequences supposed to be for the players too? Why are the players being punished for playing the game?
If that's how you wish to play, that's fine. But it runs smack into the "wanting characters to experience loss and suffering" ideology from before and hits a potentially irreconcilable paradox: If the things you, the DM, are allowed to take away, by the social contract which you espouse, are those things which the player either expressly accepted as losses or specifically did not care about, then the "loss and suffering" you've set as a goal cannot be realized. Nothing the characters lose will be anything they've invested in, emotionally, or else they'd simply decline to have it taken from them.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 09:53 PM
If that's how you wish to play, that's fine. But it runs smack into the "wanting characters to experience loss and suffering" ideology from before and hits a potentially irreconcilable paradox: If the things you, the DM, are allowed to take away, by the social contract which you espouse, are those things which the player either expressly accepted as losses or specifically did not care about, then the "loss and suffering" you've set as a goal cannot be realized. Nothing the characters lose will be anything they've invested in, emotionally, or else they'd simply decline to have it taken from them.

That's because you keep assuming that the player and the character are the same thing. They are not. What the character is emotionally invested in is not the same thing as what the player is emotionally invested in. My character may love his wife very much, but I can feel absolutely nothing for her. Therefore, I can be more than happy to have her killed off and then roleplay my character's heartbroken grief at the loss.

That's the first example that contradicts your assumption. The second example is that, for example, I may be really attached to my character's wife but I may be logical enough to admit that it'd make for a far more enjoyable story if she died. So I have her killed off and then roleplay my character's heartbroken grief at the loss. Or I can be extremely fond of my character's quirky animal companion and realise that after the two-hundred-years timeskip in the campaign, logic says that no animal can live that long, and must regrettably find myself a replacement (assuming I don't want to come up with a reason for the animal companion to have been somehow preserved).

So yes, a player can actually decide to willingly part with something they're emotionally invested in. It happens all the time.

SowZ
2011-08-28, 09:56 PM
If that's how you wish to play, that's fine. But it runs smack into the "wanting characters to experience loss and suffering" ideology from before and hits a potentially irreconcilable paradox: If the things you, the DM, are allowed to take away, by the social contract which you espouse, are those things which the player either expressly accepted as losses or specifically did not care about, then the "loss and suffering" you've set as a goal cannot be realized. Nothing the characters lose will be anything they've invested in, emotionally, or else they'd simply decline to have it taken from them.

For some players this is true, for other not. I could be perfectly happy playing in the type of game Shadowknight is talking about and would sacrifice resources/my own life as a player if it helped to tell the story. I think you are right that many and possibly most players can't do this and would play the way you are predicting, which is probably part of the reason why it is a fairly uncommon GMing style, (though not something I have never encountered,) and not how the DMG understands the GMs role/authority, (which is perfectly fine. I houserule and homebrew things myself which is really the same thing, taking liberty with the rules and intent is not something I think WotC would begrudge anyone having a good time,) which is all I was ever saying.

Amphetryon
2011-08-28, 10:01 PM
That's because you keep assuming that the player and the character are the same thing. They are not. What the character is emotionally invested in is not the same thing as what the player is emotionally invested in. My character may love his wife very much, but I can feel absolutely nothing for her. Therefore, I can be more than happy to have her killed off and then roleplay my character's heartbroken grief at the loss.
That's not what I'm assuming. Please don't put words in my mouth, thank you.

I'm saying that I've never seen a player, who ultimately makes the decision FOR the character, willingly sacrifice any of the resources you've listed as viable unless they were doing the "noble Paladin sacrifice" thing. So, technically I've seen it happen twice, in 32 years playing D&D. Those are. . . slim odds to get the results you're after from a random gaming group sample.

ryu
2011-08-28, 10:07 PM
If that's how you wish to play, that's fine. But it runs smack into the "wanting characters to experience loss and suffering" ideology from before and hits a potentially irreconcilable paradox: If the things you, the DM, are allowed to take away, by the social contract which you espouse, are those things which the player either expressly accepted as losses or specifically did not care about, then the "loss and suffering" you've set as a goal cannot be realized. Nothing the characters lose will be anything they've invested in, emotionally, or else they'd simply decline to have it taken from them.

Why? Yes my character just loves his dog. They were together since the youngest of ages and from the beginning the two basically fell asleep every night connected in a platonic cuddle. Right to the present day no less.

Me on the other hand? I invented the puppy as a narrative device that could be lost in a meaningful way later.

The character is incredibly invested. The player is invested in exploring the emotions of the character he made. Not experiencing them. What exactly is the issue here?

Edit for your response to others: Who said the dm wanted to target a specific emotional character hook? Who said the character couldn't lose something smaller that the player would agree to. More importantly hasn't it been stated that shadow actually finds players with similar tastes before sitting at the table?

erikun
2011-08-28, 10:13 PM
Wait. Are you defining "risk" by "There is a chance the player (not the character) will suffer unpleasantness at the table"?
Risk can be defined as the potential for higher gains upon success, but with higher loss on failure. In order for it to be a risk, there needs to not only be a chance of failure, but also the manditory loss upon failing. This is a perfectly valid playstyle, and indeed, the way a number of people play.

However, when we say that the DM can never remove a player resource, we remove the possibility of that playstyle. Eliminating a playstyle that players prefer is not a good thing, and while I can appreciate that it isn't your preferred playstyle, what I'm trying to say is that forcing the player to make the decision (not choice) of what happens to their resources eliminates the possibility of using risk at all.


Wait. Are you defining "risk" by "There is a chance the player (not the character) will suffer unpleasantness at the table"? Because the way I see it, a player that is actively happy no matter what happens to her ally (because if the ally survives, she keeps enjoying his company, if the ally dies, she feels inspired to roleplay her character's grief) is still running a risk according to my definition of the word, since (again) just because the character suffers a negative consequence doesn't mean it must extend to the player.
As a side note, I am a bit confused with this statement. If everything the character has is a resource of the player, and if the player should never suffer a loss or reduction in a resource, then what possible unpleasantness will the character suffer? The only thing that comes to mind is some hyped up drama due to unrelated NPCs - the "Won't someone think of the children?!" scenario.


What's the point in playing a game if there's a risk that I, the player, might stop having a good time?
Well, if you don't enjoy that type of game, then I would recommend not playing that type of game. However, if you do enjoy that type of game, then it is quite likely that you will get enjoyment out of the campaign as a whole, even when the individual scenarios were not fun all the time.


I think I highly disagree with you on what "meaningful" is.
A choice is meaningful if it has distinct consequences for the [character/player]. Otherwise, it is simply a decision. Giving the player a choice means that they have the possibility of choosing wrong. (Including dice means the chance that rolls will go poorly, as well.)

When a player is presented with a choice that doesn't affect the outcome, then the choice is meaningless, or basically meaningless. The above example is one of these - The ally could stay home, come and not be hurt, come and die, come and be seriously injured but still able, some outcome randomly determined by the dice, some outcome determined by some other person, and other possibilities. However, none of these options will influence the outcome of the situation. It doesn't matter if the ally stays home or dies, because the same outcome is decided by the player or the DM for the story. This is what makes the choice meaningless.


Presenting meaningless choices are a waste of everyone's time. They spend valuable gametime on insignificant options that fail to influence anything.

Now, it can still be a decision on the part of the player. The player can decide to bring their ally and have them get killed. But it is something that would be best left up to the player to decide on their own, not for the DM to present as a set of options with some meaning to the game/story/campaign.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 10:17 PM
That's not what I'm assuming. Please don't put words in my mouth, thank you.

I'm saying that I've never seen a player, who ultimately makes the decision FOR the character, willingly sacrifice any of the resources you've listed as viable unless they were doing the "noble Paladin sacrifice" thing. So, technically I've seen it happen twice, in 32 years playing D&D. Those are. . . slim odds to get the results you're after from a random gaming group sample.

You say that that's not what you're assuming, and then you go and talk about "noble Paladins" (which are characters). It's not about the character choosing to sacrifice something. In 90% of the times, it's not the character's choice. It's the player's. The player chooses for something to happen TO the character, or allows the DM to do the same. The "noble Paladin sacrifice" is just as rare, but that doesn't make it the only time a player sacrifices resources.

And in my case, it's happened in every single game I've ever run. The difference is that I don't leave it to chance. I am of the firm belief that players and DMs with different playstyles shouldn't game together. So if the players don't share my views, I find them a DM that is more aligned with their views.

I am fully aware that this is not a shared opinion, of course. I've just been on the receiving end of an enormous amount of anger after I told that to a player and tried to end one of my games due to diverging playstyles. But ah, well. I did what I could.


*awesome example*

Edit for your response to others: Who said the dm wanted to target a specific emotional character hook? Who said the character couldn't lose something smaller that the player would agree to. More importantly hasn't it been stated that shadow actually finds players with similar tastes before sitting at the table?

This, so much this.

Amphetryon
2011-08-28, 10:19 PM
You say that that's not what you're assuming, and then you go and talk about "noble Paladins" (which are characters). It's not about the character choosing to sacrifice something. In 90% of the times, it's not the character's choice. It's the player's. The player chooses for something to happen TO the character, or allows the DM to do the same. The "noble Paladin sacrifice" is just as rare, but that doesn't make it the only time a player sacrifices resources.
So that I can, perhaps, understand this dichotomy, could you please give an example of a character decision that the player does not express?

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 10:21 PM
That's not what I'm assuming. Please don't put words in my mouth, thank you.

I'm saying that I've never seen a player, who ultimately makes the decision FOR the character, willingly sacrifice any of the resources you've listed as viable unless they were doing the "noble Paladin sacrifice" thing. So, technically I've seen it happen twice, in 32 years playing D&D. Those are. . . slim odds to get the results you're after from a random gaming group sample.

To be fair, D&D is a horrible game to do this with. I am not surprised you haven't seen it much. I was mistaken about ShadowKnight before, he clearly enjoys a pretty strongly cooperative narrativist game where gamism and simulationism is relatively unimportant, I think. D&D is gamist in design with some significant simulationist elements. Winning or losing is about whether players have the mettle to overcome challenges using their characters, and real loss can happen because that's realistic within the setting. In contrast, ShadowKnight places the collective story desire above all other factors...far above all other factors, as best I can tell (though that might be overstating that a bit).

D&D is a really poor vehicle for this, but of course with house rules -- some written, some not, no doubt -- a kludge can be constructed to achieve this end. This is, of course, nothing new in D&D, since it has been such a dominant factor in RPGs, it has often been used for the sorts of games it isn't well-designed for.

In D&D would I ever choose to have something bad to my character for story reasons? I don't think so. That's not what I play D&D for. In the DFRPG would I ever do that? Yeah, and I get encouraged to do it with a Fate Point. OWoD I've done similar stuff as well (though one is less rewarded). That's because those games are better vehicles for such play. In a game like Universalis, it is even easier to do, especially if you keep characters as only under temporary control of any player.

SowZ
2011-08-28, 10:22 PM
You say that that's not what you're assuming, and then you go and talk about "noble Paladins" (which are characters). It's not about the character choosing to sacrifice something. In 90% of the times, it's not the character's choice. It's the player's. The player chooses for something to happen TO the character, or allows the DM to do the same. The "noble Paladin sacrifice" is just as rare, but that doesn't make it the only time a player sacrifices resources.

And in my case, it's happened in every single game I've ever run. The difference is that I don't leave it to chance. I am of the firm belief that players and DMs with different playstyles shouldn't game together. So if the players don't share my views, I find them a DM that is more aligned with their views.

I am fully aware that this is not a shared opinion, of course. I've just been on the receiving end of an enormous amount of anger after I told that to a player and tried to end one of my games due to diverging playstyles. But ah, well. I did what I could.



This, so much this.

I think players should be willing to at least try it out, though, without the resentment at least one player seemed to show you. There is no reason why someone can't enjoy multiple playstyles and they will never know if they remain closed minded to the concept. The way you are explaining gaming I have done before and had fun doing it. But I never would have had those experiences if I had stayed firm to the more common style, even if it is what I usually do.


To be fair, D&D is a horrible game to do this with. I am not surprised you haven't seen it much. I was mistaken about ShadowKnight before, he clearly enjoys a pretty strongly cooperative narrativist game where gamism and simulationism is relatively unimportant, I think. D&D is gamist in design with some significant simulationist elements. Winning or losing is about whether players have the mettle to overcome challenges using their characters, and real loss can happen because that's realistic within the setting. In contrast, ShadowKnight places the collective story desire above all other factors...far above all other factors, as best I can tell (though that might be overstating that a bit).

D&D is a really poor vehicle for this, but of course with house rules -- some written, some not, no doubt -- a kludge can be constructed to achieve this end. This is, of course, nothing new in D&D, since it has been such a dominant factor in RPGs, it has often been used for the sorts of games it isn't well-designed for.

In D&D would I ever choose to have something bad to my character for story reasons? I don't think so. That's not what I play D&D for. In the DFRPG would I ever do that? Yeah, and I get encouraged to do it with a Fate Point. OWoD I've done similar stuff as well (though one is less rewarded). That's because those games are better vehicles for such play. In a game like Universalis, it is even easier to do, especially if you keep characters as only under temporary control of any player.

It is also the accepted model for many play by post forum games. WoD is what I've done this style with, in a way. I've never done it with D&D and so I won't make judgements either way, but is seems to me like doing it with D&D would be difficult and most D&D players I know would have a tough time doing it in D&D.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 10:37 PM
Risk can be defined as the potential for higher gains upon success, but with higher loss on failure. In order for it to be a risk, there needs to not only be a chance of failure, but also the manditory loss upon failing. This is a perfectly valid playstyle, and indeed, the way a number of people play.

However, when we say that the DM can never remove a player resource, we remove the possibility of that playstyle. Eliminating a playstyle that players prefer is not a good thing, and while I can appreciate that it isn't your preferred playstyle, what I'm trying to say is that forcing the player to make the decision (not choice) of what happens to their resources eliminates the possibility of using risk at all.

I never said that this was the way gaming should be. I have absolutely no problems with such a playstyle existing in tables I am not a part of. If a player disagrees with me, they are more than welcome to find themselves a GM that is more in line with their tastes.


As a side note, I am a bit confused with this statement. If everything the character has is a resource of the player, and if the player should never suffer a loss or reduction in a resource, then what possible unpleasantness will the character suffer? The only thing that comes to mind is some hyped up drama due to unrelated NPCs - the "Won't someone think of the children?!" scenario.

I never said that the player should never suffer a loss or reduction. I said that the DM should never remove a player's resource without his or her permission. And preferably, the player should volunteer the resources to be removed if she believes it will make for a better story. Or preemptively allow/encourage the DM to remove them as he sees fit. Or sacrifice them herself.


Well, if you don't enjoy that type of game, then I would recommend not playing that type of game. However, if you do enjoy that type of game, then it is quite likely that you will get enjoyment out of the campaign as a whole, even when the individual scenarios were not fun all the time.

And I never said I would play in that type of game. And I have no problems with people who do enjoy that type of game. What I'm saying is that I don't see why is there a necessity for a player to risk suffering negative consequences. It's merely an option that may enhance the game at some tables, like yours. Not a necessity.


A choice is meaningful if it has distinct consequences for the [character/player]. Otherwise, it is simply a decision. Giving the player a choice means that they have the possibility of choosing wrong. (Including dice means the chance that rolls will go poorly, as well.)

When a player is presented with a choice that doesn't affect the outcome, then the choice is meaningless, or basically meaningless. The above example is one of these - The ally could stay home, come and not be hurt, come and die, come and be seriously injured but still able, some outcome randomly determined by the dice, some outcome determined by some other person, and other possibilities. However, none of these options will influence the outcome of the situation. It doesn't matter if the ally stays home or dies, because the same outcome is decided by the player or the DM for the story. This is what makes the choice meaningless.

Presenting meaningless choices are a waste of everyone's time. They spend valuable gametime on insignificant options that fail to influence anything.

Now, it can still be a decision on the part of the player. The player can decide to bring their ally and have them get killed. But it is something that would be best left up to the player to decide on their own, not for the DM to present as a set of options with some meaning to the game/story/campaign.

I think we should drop this, because it seems pretty clear you're not aware of the fact that you're calling the games of people that do not agree with you "meaningless" and "a waste of everyone's time" and I have no desire to continue hearing my games being called that.

Needless to say, I completely disagree on your definitions on choice, meaning, decision and so on.


So that I can, perhaps, understand this dichotomy, could you please give an example of a character decision that the player does not express?

Haven't I given a lot of them already? The character bringing an ally to a masquerade does not want the ally to die, but I as a player might tell the DM not to pull any punches during the fight, and let the dice decide if she lives or dies. The character would certainly not want his wife to die, but I can ask the DM to kill her off (or do so myself in my character's background). I may suggest the DM to steal my wizard's spellbook as a way to get my character to join the rest of the party.

All of those examples are player decisions that the character does not express, because he or she has no knowledge such a decision is taking place.



To be fair, D&D is a horrible game to do this with. I am not surprised you haven't seen it much. I was mistaken about ShadowKnight before, he clearly enjoys a pretty strongly cooperative narrativist game where gamism and simulationism is relatively unimportant, I think. D&D is gamist in design with some significant simulationist elements. Winning or losing is about whether players have the mettle to overcome challenges using their characters, and real loss can happen because that's realistic within the setting. In contrast, ShadowKnight places the collective story desire above all other factors...far above all other factors, as best I can tell (though that might be overstating that a bit).

D&D is a really poor vehicle for this, but of course with house rules -- some written, some not, no doubt -- a kludge can be constructed to achieve this end. This is, of course, nothing new in D&D, since it has been such a dominant factor in RPGs, it has often been used for the sorts of games it isn't well-designed for.

In D&D would I ever choose to have something bad to my character for story reasons? I don't think so. That's not what I play D&D for. In the DFRPG would I ever do that? Yeah, and I get encouraged to do it with a Fate Point. OWoD I've done similar stuff as well (though one is less rewarded). That's because those games are better vehicles for such play. In a game like Universalis, it is even easier to do, especially if you keep characters as only under temporary control of any player.

I was under the impression D&D was primarily simulationist and secondarily gamist, but that might be splitting hairs.

Other than that, I have to disagree. I think any game system can be played that way. If the system doesn't spell out rewards for the player for making sacrifices, it's up to the GM to do so, just like some other situations that might arise in any kind of game might not be spelled out in the rules and require the GM to make decisions.


I think players should be willing to at least try it out, though, without the resentment at least one player seemed to show you. There is no reason why someone can't enjoy multiple playstyles and they will never know if they remain closed minded to the concept. The way you are explaining gaming I have done before and had fun doing it. But I never would have had those experiences if I had stayed firm to the more common style, even if it is what I usually do.

It's a solo game, so you can say that I had the vitriol of 100% of the players for daring to propose that perhaps he could have more fun with another DM. Apparently he took it personally or failed to see the fact that I had his best interests in mind. Oh, well. Maybe he'll see I'm right in a few months' time, after the story thickens and he comes to loathe having to constantly separate player knowledge from character knowledge.

As for the rest, I have to say it's a highly personal issue. I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd rather discover things on my own than having them thrust upon me. It's a matter of choice. In the former case, I'm making one. In the latter, I'm not.

erikun
2011-08-28, 10:43 PM
I think we should drop this, because it seems pretty clear you're not aware of the fact that you're calling the games of people that do not agree with you "meaningless" and "a waste of everyone's time" and I have no desire to continue hearing my games being called that.
Alright then, sorry about harping on it. And I'm sorry if that's the way my statements came out, because that's not the way I wished them to be presented.

SowZ
2011-08-28, 10:43 PM
It's a solo game, so you can say that I had the vitriol of 100% of the players for daring to propose that perhaps he could have more fun with another DM. Apparently he took it personally or failed to see the fact that I had his best interests in mind. Oh, well. Maybe he'll see I'm right in a few months' time, after the story thickens and he comes to loathe having to constantly separate player knowledge from character knowledge.

As for the rest, I have to say it's a highly personal issue. I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd rather discover things on my own than having them thrust upon me. It's a matter of choice. In the former case, I'm making one. In the latter, I'm not.

That's fine. I would just encourage anyone to at least try a game where their resources are out of their control and they can only interact like a person would be able to, that is, with their choices, (possibly one where there is less mechanical impact on losing things and where it isn't built into the character for people who that would bother,) and try a game that is more of a collaborative story development where everyone accepts that their choices with their characters are to advance the story, not to advance power levels, persay, unless that is part of the story/character. If someone tries both and finds that both are not fun, that is fine. At least they know they aren't missing out.

Amphetryon
2011-08-28, 10:52 PM
Last time, then I'm out.

The character bringing an ally to a masquerade does not want the ally to die, but I as a player might tell the DM not to pull any punches during the fight, and let the dice decide if she lives or dies.They're the same person at the table, unless you've Dominated, Mind-Raped, or otherwise exerted DM control over the character. The player makes the character's choices. If you've seen a situation where this was not so, the above example - and those "lot[s] if them" you've given as examples - do not show that to be the case. If the player wishes to have the character's stuff (resources, to use your preferred term) messed with, the player will tell you. The character will not, because the character is a creation of the player, often influenced by the others at the table, including the DM, who is also a player.

Especially given your stated abhorrence for method acting, I'd think you'd acknowledge that there's not a distinction between what the player wants to happen and what the character wants to happen.

As for telling the DM to let the dice fall where they may? That would tell me, as DM or co-player, that the ally is not one in whom the player or his character are especially invested in, so it's not a loss of resource.

ryu
2011-08-28, 10:54 PM
So that I can, perhaps, understand this dichotomy, could you please give an example of a character decision that the player does not express?

I can give you the reverse as it was what we were referring to. A decision the player makes to further their own invested ends while not giving their character the best of days. Matter of fact if you reread my last post the dog should be familiar.

You as a player want to give your character a momentary loss of innocence, and a sense of what's at stake so as to add flavor to their personality and make their story better in your own eyes. You ask the dm to kill your dog companion in the most tragedy inspiring way possible.

The dog in a subsequent encounter is effected by a spell. For days you nor your character know what the spell was and the character begins to assume that whatever it was didn't work. soon the dog begins to grow strangely distant and eventually even aggressive. You bring it to a church for medical attention and find that your dog has had demon infused into its system with magic and is gradually going berserk as a result. Your character must put the poor thing out of its misery before what little remains of its mind is completely destroyed.

Bam sobering innocence lost and you the player got exactly what you asked for.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 10:59 PM
Alright then, sorry about harping on it. And I'm sorry if that's the way my statements came out, because that's not the way I wished them to be presented.

No problem, I understand that it might seem that way to you, but you could see it this way: if (sane) people play that kind of game, there is meaning. Otherwise, they wouldn't be playing it. So you could try to find out what kind of meaning it is, or just let it be as one of life's grand mysteries, but tolerance would be kind of nice.


That's fine. I would just encourage anyone to at least try a game where their resources are out of their control and they can only interact like a person would be able to, that is, with their choices, (possibly one where there is less mechanical impact on losing things and where it isn't built into the character for people who that would bother,) and try a game that is more of a collaborative story development where everyone accepts that their choices with their characters are to advance the story, not to advance power levels, persay, unless that is part of the story/character. If someone tries both and finds that both are not fun, that is fine. At least they know they aren't missing out.

I don't get the first one. That's real life. What's the point in playing such a game? What are you getting out of it? If you want to feel what it's like, just go outside and live your daily life. Or is it like "Real Life... IN SPACE!" (or "IN A STANDARD MEDIEVAL FANTASY SETTING!" and so on) and the only thing you're experiencing is the change in setting? Because real life would be just the same regardless of where it takes place.

Mind you, I'm not saying that you aren't allowed to like such a game, but why would you recommend it? What is so unique about it? It's actually the most easily-duplicated experience you can find at any table, because it can be duplicated by going outside.

Other than that, I wouldn't actually encourage that sort of thing. I might inform people of the existence of such kinds of games, but I wouldn't encourage anyone to do something I wasn't reasonably sure they'd enjoy.


Last time, then I'm out.
They're the same person at the table, unless you've Dominated, Mind-Raped, or otherwise exerted DM control over the character. The player makes the character's choices. If you've seen a situation where this was not so, the above example - and those "lot[s] if them" you've given as examples - do not show that to be the case. If the player wishes to have the character's stuff (resources, to use your preferred term) messed with, the player will tell you. The character will not, because the character is a creation of the player, often influenced by the others at the table, including the DM, who is also a player.

Firstly, the characters do not exist at the table. They exist purely within the imaginations of the actual people at the table.

Secondly, I never said that there were things that a character could do that a player hadn't decided. I said that there were things that a player can decide that is not reflected as a character decision.

Other than that, you're right.


Especially given your stated abhorrence for method acting, I'd think you'd acknowledge that there's not a distinction between what the player wants to happen and what the character wants to happen.

Actually, I disagree. There is a distinction between what the player wants to happen and what the character wants to happen. The character may want his ally to live while the player may want her to die. The character herself may want to survive to have grandchildren, but the player may want her to die horribly in a grimdark finale.


As for telling the DM to let the dice fall where they may? That would tell me, as DM or co-player, that the ally is not one in whom the player or his character are especially invested in, so it's not a loss of resource.

That's simply false. And I have already made a post telling you otherwise. I'll quote myself.


The second example is that, for example, I may be really attached to my character's wife but I may be logical enough to admit that it'd make for a far more enjoyable story if she died. So I have her killed off and then roleplay my character's heartbroken grief at the loss. Or I can be extremely fond of my character's quirky animal companion and realise that after the two-hundred-years timeskip in the campaign, logic says that no animal can live that long, and must regrettably find myself a replacement (assuming I don't want to come up with a reason for the animal companion to have been somehow preserved).

It doesn't matter how many times you deny it, there are people capable of sacrificing things they like for the sake of telling a richer story.

erikun
2011-08-28, 11:11 PM
No problem, I understand that it might seem that way to you, but you could see it this way: if (sane) people play that kind of game, there is meaning. Otherwise, they wouldn't be playing it. So you could try to find out what kind of meaning it is, or just let it be as one of life's grand mysteries, but tolerance would be kind of nice.
I'm just trying to say that such a play removes choices. The player will still make decisions on where the story goes, and those decisions have meaning, but they aren't making choices.


I don't get the first one. That's real life. What's the point in playing such a game?

Mind you, I'm not saying that you aren't allowed to like such a game, but why would you recommend it? What is so unique about it?
It's the same thing that's unique about each player deciding what exactly happens to all the aspects of a character at any time - which is the same a creating a story.

SowZ
2011-08-28, 11:15 PM
I don't get the first one. That's real life. What's the point in playing such a game? What are you getting out of it? If you want to feel what it's like, just go outside and live your daily life. Or is it like "Real Life... IN SPACE!" (or "IN A STANDARD MEDIEVAL FANTASY SETTING!" and so on) and the only thing you're experiencing is the change in setting? Because real life would be just the same regardless of where it takes place.

Mind you, I'm not saying that you aren't allowed to like such a game, but why would you recommend it? What is so unique about it? It's actually the most easily-duplicated experience you can find at any table, because it can be duplicated by going outside.

Other than that, I wouldn't actually encourage that sort of thing. I might inform people of the existence of such kinds of games, but I wouldn't encourage anyone to do something I wasn't reasonably sure they'd enjoy.


It is as if you are a real person within a fantastical setting, though. It isn't real life, it is your life as it would be if you were a knight or a space pirate or a guy in a world that has vampires. I wouldn't roleplay a game where I was a corporate executive trying to become a CEO. You become an alternate identity you could never be any other way. It is not just telling a story, it is becoming someone else for an evening. Very theraputic, I've found.

ryu
2011-08-28, 11:17 PM
The character and the player are the same person you say? Considering one of my past character roasted an orphanage whole because he could and the next was disgusted by this and wholeheartedly wanted his head on his head on a pike where does that leave your hypothesis?

Do you think I'm a murderous baby killing psychopath with a masochistic split personality disorder or do you think I've long since effectively separated myself from my concepts? Oh or how about the two twin brothers I role played from a species I made up that were diametrically opposed in ideology while considering the other wrong but still loving each other.

How in the nine hells did I manage either.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-28, 11:19 PM
I'm just trying to say that such a play removes choices. The player will still make decisions on where the story goes, and those decisions have meaning, but they aren't making choices.

You assume we're operating under the same definition of choices, we're not. To me, a choice is any decision where there are more than one different possibilities. Your definition of choice is different. The way I see it, choosing whether a character's ally lives, dies or is left up to the DM is just as much of a choice as any other.


It's the same thing that's unique about each player deciding what exactly happens to all the aspects of a character at any time - which is the same a creating a story.

No, it's not. It's patently not the same thing as each player deciding what happens to all the aspects of a character at any time. It's actually the exact opposite of it.


It is as if you are a real person within a fantastical setting, though. It isn't real life, it is your life as it would be if you were a knight or a space pirate or a guy in a world that has vampires. I wouldn't roleplay a game where I was a corporate executive trying to become a CEO. You become an alternate identity you could never be any other way. It is not just telling a story, it is becoming someone else for an evening. Very theraputic, I've found.

But nothing is under your control. You assume another identity, sure, but your character's fate is not your own. What's the point in undergoing such an experience if you can't decide what happens? It's like trying to watch TV while the remote is in the tumble-dryer.

SowZ
2011-08-28, 11:23 PM
You assume we're operating under the same definition of choices, we're not. To me, a choice is any decision where there are more than one different possibilities. Your definition of choice is different. The way I see it, choosing whether a character's ally lives, dies or is left up to the DM is just as much of a choice as any other.



No, it's not. It's patently not the same thing as each player deciding what happens to all the aspects of a character at any time. It's actually the exact opposite of it.



But nothing is under your control. You assume another identity, sure, but your character's fate is not your own. What's the point in undergoing such an experience if you can't decide what happens? It's like trying to watch TV while the remote is in the tumble-dryer.

That's the appeal. You are not a god over the life of the space pirate. You are the space pirate. Life is uncertain. You do not know if you will live or die when you attack that port. You have to plan and live and love to the fullest because every session may be your last. When you are an author of your character and control his destiny, you aren't that character but that characters master. Which isn't worse or less valid than other approached. But the only way to truly become another person and live in another world is to surrender that control.

When I GM, I give my players the chance to be someone else they want to try and be for a little while. This is only to an extent, of course. We still retain our identities and aren't IC 100% of the time and care about the story OOC a lot. But they can still be another guy.

I have roleplayed characters and felt scared and pissed and had different thought process/moralities and been in heated arguments with other players all in character.

Drachasor
2011-08-28, 11:23 PM
I was under the impression D&D was primarily simulationist and secondarily gamist, but that might be splitting hairs.

It's not splitting hairs at all. D&D is primarily a gamist game by far. Though, let us note that every RPG has to have some elements of simulationism and narrativism in them (gamism you might be able to avoid). The latter is any story and the former is any attempt at verisimilitude. That doesn't make them narrativist or simulationist games however. D&D does go into quite a lot of detail on things, but it doesn't actually do a lot to work on making a SIMULATED fantasy adventure. It's all about finding a good challenge to test the player's mettle. All the real work on the system goes into that, with at best vague notes about experience for "good role-playing" and such.

Simulationist games are pretty darn rare, actually. I think Synapse is one -- it looked like one when I looked over the rules. It has rules on determining what choice your character would REALLY make given his background and so forth (20-odd variables regarding motivations). Suppressing the dominant motivation in any given choice inflicts stress on the character. Seems pretty focused figuring out exactly how a "real" person would act. D&D doesn't really care about any of that, by contrast. Alignments are the closest thing and they are a abstract to a large degree with little to no mechanics behind them.


Other than that, I have to disagree. I think any game system can be played that way. If the system doesn't spell out rewards for the player for making sacrifices, it's up to the GM to do so, just like some other situations that might arise in any kind of game might not be spelled out in the rules and require the GM to make decisions.

Any game system can be played ANY way. That doesn't mean any game system is equally suited to any style of play. The GNS approach was first written up because system matters. Some game systems are just better for certain types of play than others, because they were designed to support that kind of play.

Now, like you say, the GM can make up rewards for various things however he wants. That's what I was talking about regarding written and unwritten house rules. A lot of D&D games that veer off the gamist approach have a lot of unwritten house rules, often because of group consensus. Heck, even gamist ones often have the unwritten assumption that players aren't going to try to kill each other (though the rules allow it), and if a PvP player shows up in that sort of group it can wreck all kinds of havok. Similarly, if a gamist guy shows up in a group that has a lot of assumptions about play that are narrativist (and a GM that encourages them through unwritten rules), then this too will really muck things up.

Anyhow, D&D gets modded like this a lot because of its sheer presence in the RPG world.


I'm just trying to say that such a play removes choices. The player will still make decisions on where the story goes, and those decisions have meaning, but they aren't making choices.

I'd say any decision that has meaning is certainly a choice. There are even consequences. Just because those consequences are largely understood and agreed to by everyone involved doesn't make them non-existent.

erikun
2011-08-28, 11:31 PM
You assume we're operating under the same definition of choices, we're not. To me, a choice is any decision where there are more than one different possibilities. Your definition of choice is different. The way I see it, choosing whether a character's ally lives, dies or is left up to the DM is just as much of a choice as any other.
Fair enough. It seems like my misstating my position was due to not referring to the right definition of choice. My mistake.


No, it's not. It's patently not the same thing as each player deciding what happens to all the aspects of a character at any time. It's actually the exact opposite of it.
And playing a game where each player is in control of the actions of only their character, with the DM determining what happens to everyone else and the dice including completely random factors is not at all the same thing as real life. It is, arguably, the exact opposite of it - which was the point of the comparison.

Aux-Ash
2011-08-29, 02:10 PM
This is a very interesting discussion I think, certainly gave me a new perspective on things.

One thing I'm having a hard time grasping though is: if the gm cannot take away (or make any decision regarding) Player Resources (even if I personally, would say that the only resource the players have is the character. Everything else is character resources and can be gained and lost depending on what the character chooses), then can he kill the character?
Since after all, in a way, the gm does in a single go remove all resources (and if the player is then allowed to make a new character with equal amount of resources the gm is giving them again, but he/she did take away the resources).

If the answer is yes, why would it be acceptable to remove all resources in one go. But not partially?

If no, I hit a philosophical snag. Specifically... then the gm and the players aren't really telling the story together, are they?
The players are telling the story (deciding the fate of the protagonists, for lack of a better word) and the gm is simply providing the backdrop. Providing the means for the players to tell their story, but not participating unless asked to do so by one of the players.
He can't do anything that leaves a lasting effect on the characters, only the players can. They may choose to act upon something he presents them, but in a way... he's really only providing inspiration for their choices.

Or did I take a wrong turn somewhere?

As a tangent, I could also see some players abusing sacrosanct resources by using say... allies and such to eliminate risk to their own character, knowing that they cannot lose the resource.

ryu
2011-08-29, 02:27 PM
On the point of characters never experiencing any danger I would like to repeat that players are found who share similar tastes not just asked at random to join.

On the point of story authority the dm owns everything the players don't. That little girl you were trying to save from the undead? Oh too slow on the draw because you put more attention to random fighting than getting her out of harms way. She wasn't your resource but now your character gets to live with the fact that she died.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-29, 07:15 PM
That's the appeal. You are not a god over the life of the space pirate. You are the space pirate. Life is uncertain. You do not know if you will live or die when you attack that port. You have to plan and live and love to the fullest because every session may be your last. When you are an author of your character and control his destiny, you aren't that character but that characters master. Which isn't worse or less valid than other approached. But the only way to truly become another person and live in another world is to surrender that control.

Firstly, that presupposes that you cannot find such level of immersion in other playstyles. That is simply false. Even if you don't go to the opposite extreme (and let the player have full control), that level of immersion is possible. Therefore, that's not a reason to recommend that playstyle because that particular benefit can be found in other playstyles.

Secondly, "live and love to the fullest because every session may be your last" is also another wrong presupposition. It presupposes a player doesn't already see every session like that (or that, as I said before, since such experiences can be emulated thanks to Real Life, it can be included in that).

Thirdly, it presupposes that a player cannot be sufficiently immersed into her character unless she relinquishes control. I find that to be a gross underestimation of most people's mental capabilities.

So I really don't see what is so unique about that playstyle that can't be superseded by another playstyle or by real life.


When I GM, I give my players the chance to be someone else they want to try and be for a little while. This is only to an extent, of course. We still retain our identities and aren't IC 100% of the time and care about the story OOC a lot. But they can still be another guy.

I have roleplayed characters and felt scared and pissed and had different thought process/moralities and been in heated arguments with other players all in character.

Yes, and? Why are you assuming that it's impossible to achieve that same immersion with a different playstyle? Simply because you know a few examples of people who can't doesn't mean that's the general rule.



It's not splitting hairs at all. D&D is primarily a gamist game by far. Though, let us note that every RPG has to have some elements of simulationism and narrativism in them (gamism you might be able to avoid). The latter is any story and the former is any attempt at verisimilitude. That doesn't make them narrativist or simulationist games however. D&D does go into quite a lot of detail on things, but it doesn't actually do a lot to work on making a SIMULATED fantasy adventure. It's all about finding a good challenge to test the player's mettle. All the real work on the system goes into that, with at best vague notes about experience for "good role-playing" and such.

Simulationist games are pretty darn rare, actually. I think Synapse is one -- it looked like one when I looked over the rules. It has rules on determining what choice your character would REALLY make given his background and so forth (20-odd variables regarding motivations). Suppressing the dominant motivation in any given choice inflicts stress on the character. Seems pretty focused figuring out exactly how a "real" person would act. D&D doesn't really care about any of that, by contrast. Alignments are the closest thing and they are a abstract to a large degree with little to no mechanics behind them.

I haven't been able to give Synapse a try yet, but I do agree with what you say.

As for the rest, I can't really comment, since I was just expressing my views on the matter (which have been corrected now, thanks) and not a factual statement. I'm no expert on the matter, after all.


Any game system can be played ANY way. That doesn't mean any game system is equally suited to any style of play. The GNS approach was first written up because system matters. Some game systems are just better for certain types of play than others, because they were designed to support that kind of play.

And why is that important? Where is it stated that we must use the game that is best suited for the types of play they were allegedly designed to support? And who is to say that this is the case? If I say that D&D supports my playstyle adequately, why am I "doing it wrong" by playing D&D rather than, say, Universalis?


Now, like you say, the GM can make up rewards for various things however he wants. That's what I was talking about regarding written and unwritten house rules. A lot of D&D games that veer off the gamist approach have a lot of unwritten house rules, often because of group consensus. Heck, even gamist ones often have the unwritten assumption that players aren't going to try to kill each other (though the rules allow it), and if a PvP player shows up in that sort of group it can wreck all kinds of havok. Similarly, if a gamist guy shows up in a group that has a lot of assumptions about play that are narrativist (and a GM that encourages them through unwritten rules), then this too will really muck things up.

Anyhow, D&D gets modded like this a lot because of its sheer presence in the RPG world.

Yes, and? That's precisely my point. D&D gets modded a lot. What's the problem in modding it for different reasons than the majority of gamers mod it for?


Fair enough. It seems like my misstating my position was due to not referring to the right definition of choice. My mistake.

No problem, it's all right for people to see things in different ways. :smalltongue:


And playing a game where each player is in control of the actions of only their character, with the DM determining what happens to everyone else and the dice including completely random factors is not at all the same thing as real life. It is, arguably, the exact opposite of it - which was the point of the comparison.

Yes, you're right. But it seems you don't get what I'm saying. If you recommend or encourage someone to do something, you start by the assumption that they will be benefited from doing as you say. Where's the benefit in that case? What can be gained by doing so that can't be gained by experiencing your Real Life or engaging in any other sort of playstyle?



This is a very interesting discussion I think, certainly gave me a new perspective on things.

One thing I'm having a hard time grasping though is: if the gm cannot take away (or make any decision regarding) Player Resources (even if I personally, would say that the only resource the players have is the character. Everything else is character resources and can be gained and lost depending on what the character chooses), then can he kill the character?
Since after all, in a way, the gm does in a single go remove all resources (and if the player is then allowed to make a new character with equal amount of resources the gm is giving them again, but he/she did take away the resources).

If the answer is yes, why would it be acceptable to remove all resources in one go. But not partially?

As you have adequately deduced yourself, killing a character is, indeed, removing all of the player's resources in one fell swoop. Everything I said regarding player resources applies to character death as well.


If no, I hit a philosophical snag. Specifically... then the gm and the players aren't really telling the story together, are they?
The players are telling the story (deciding the fate of the protagonists, for lack of a better word) and the gm is simply providing the backdrop. Providing the means for the players to tell their story, but not participating unless asked to do so by one of the players.
He can't do anything that leaves a lasting effect on the characters, only the players can. They may choose to act upon something he presents them, but in a way... he's really only providing inspiration for their choices.

Or did I take a wrong turn somewhere?

And this is a problem why? What's the problem in the players deciding the fates of their own characters? Deciding what lasting effects are left on them and so on? As opposed to what, the players trying to lead their characters somewhere and being wholly at the whim of the dice, the DM or both? In that case, the players are only providing inspiration for the DM's choices.

I think you're assuming that a story is only about the protagonists. This is false. The antagonists, the allies, the enemies, the extras, the setting, the secondary characters, the locations, the gods, the world itself, they're all just as important as the protagonists. Just because chocolate might be the most important and spotlight-stealing ingredient in a chocolate mousse cake, it doesn't mean that it's the only ingredient, and that the chef in charge of the other ingredients "is not really cooking with the chefs in charge of the chocolate."


As a tangent, I could also see some players abusing sacrosanct resources by using say... allies and such to eliminate risk to their own character, knowing that they cannot lose the resource.

What leads you to assume that there will ever be any sort of abuse at the table in the first place? And what's more, do you really think that a player that has got the intention to abuse the rules/advantages he's given/etc in order to get what he wants won't already do so regardless of how much control/certainty he's given?

Knaight
2011-08-29, 07:32 PM
Firstly, that presupposes that you cannot find such level of immersion in other playstyles. That is simply false. Even if you don't go to the opposite extreme (and let the player have full control), that level of immersion is possible. Therefore, that's not a reason to recommend that playstyle because that particular benefit can be found in other playstyles.

Secondly, "live and love to the fullest because every session may be your last" is also another wrong presupposition. It presupposes a player doesn't already see every session like that (or that, as I said before, since such experiences can be emulated thanks to Real Life, it can be included in that).

Thirdly, it presupposes that a player cannot be sufficiently immersed into her character unless she relinquishes control. I find that to be a gross underestimation of most people's mental capabilities.

So I really don't see what is so unique about that playstyle that can't be superseded by another playstyle or by real life.
Left out of this is the notion that immersion may not be viewed as a universal requirement. To use Forge terminology - GNS is already in the thread, so why not bring more in - there are several different approaches to any given character. Notable are two, called Author Stance and Actor Stance, one of which is about viewing the character as an instrument to direct in collaborative storytelling - note that immersion within said story is unnecessary at this point, as that is about how it is experienced and not created- and the other is all about immersion within a character.



As you have adequately deduced yourself, killing a character is, indeed, removing all of the player's resources in one fell swoop. Everything I said regarding player resources applies to character death as well.
Not necessarily. There is no reason to assume that the only interface with the mechanics a player has access to is through their character, this is true in unmodified D&D, to some extent, but as a general analysis it is simply wrong. I can guarantee that most GMless games have each player control far more than that, and even games with a GM might have players in possession of several characters each, non-character influence through metagame points or similar, so on and so forth.

SowZ
2011-08-29, 07:39 PM
Firstly, that presupposes that you cannot find such level of immersion in other playstyles. That is simply false. Even if you don't go to the opposite extreme (and let the player have full control), that level of immersion is possible. Therefore, that's not a reason to recommend that playstyle because that particular benefit can be found in other playstyles.

Secondly, "live and love to the fullest because every session may be your last" is also another wrong presupposition. It presupposes a player doesn't already see every session like that (or that, as I said before, since such experiences can be emulated thanks to Real Life, it can be included in that).

Thirdly, it presupposes that a player cannot be sufficiently immersed into her character unless she relinquishes control. I find that to be a gross underestimation of most people's mental capabilities.

So I really don't see what is so unique about that playstyle that can't be superseded by another playstyle or by real life.



Yes, and? Why are you assuming that it's impossible to achieve that same immersion with a different playstyle? Simply because you know a few examples of people who can't doesn't mean that's the general rule.




I haven't been able to give Synapse a try yet, but I do agree with what you say.

As for the rest, I can't really comment, since I was just expressing my views on the matter (which have been corrected now, thanks) and not a factual statement. I'm no expert on the matter, after all.



And why is that important? Where is it stated that we must use the game that is best suited for the types of play they were allegedly designed to support? And who is to say that this is the case? If I say that D&D supports my playstyle adequately, why am I "doing it wrong" by playing D&D rather than, say, Universalis?



Yes, and? That's precisely my point. D&D gets modded a lot. What's the problem in modding it for different reasons than the majority of gamers mod it for?



No problem, it's all right for people to see things in different ways. :smalltongue:



Yes, you're right. But it seems you don't get what I'm saying. If you recommend or encourage someone to do something, you start by the assumption that they will be benefited from doing as you say. Where's the benefit in that case? What can be gained by doing so that can't be gained by experiencing your Real Life or engaging in any other sort of playstyle?




As you have adequately deduced yourself, killing a character is, indeed, removing all of the player's resources in one fell swoop. Everything I said regarding player resources applies to character death as well.



And this is a problem why? What's the problem in the players deciding the fates of their own characters? Deciding what lasting effects are left on them and so on? As opposed to what, the players trying to lead their characters somewhere and being wholly at the whim of the dice, the DM or both? In that case, the players are only providing inspiration for the DM's choices.

I think you're assuming that a story is only about the protagonists. This is false. The antagonists, the allies, the enemies, the extras, the setting, the secondary characters, the locations, the gods, the world itself, they're all just as important as the protagonists. Just because chocolate might be the most important and spotlight-stealing ingredient in a chocolate mousse cake, it doesn't mean that it's the only ingredient, and that the chef in charge of the other ingredients "is not really cooking with the chefs in charge of the chocolate."



What leads you to assume that there will ever be any sort of abuse at the table in the first place? And what's more, do you really think that a player that has got the intention to abuse the rules/advantages he's given/etc in order to get what he wants won't already do so regardless of how much control/certainty he's given?

If you have control over a characters life that the character doesn't have over their own life, there is a distance between you and that character. You can become emotionally invested in the world, get in character, and still be immersed when you are the controller of a characters fate. That doesn't mean your immersion is any less. But it is a different kind of immersion and a different kind of 'getting into character' and no amount of willingness to sacrifice your characters things or proper use of drama is going to change that it is impossible to become a character in every way while having control over a character that the character wouldn't have, because now part of you is not the character but the controller of the character. One is no better than antoher but there is a significant difference.

Don't say that I implied immersion into the world or understanding of the characters mindset or emotional investment has a higher potential with one style of play because I never said or implied that. You are making presumptions about my opinions. But you can't become a different person without becoming a different person and all that entails. That sounds tautological, but by having outside control over someone there is a distinct and clear seperation.

Being master of a character has its own advantages. In many ways, you have more control over the narrative and the character is yours in all respects. But a character being yours and you being a character is different.

Drachasor
2011-08-29, 09:43 PM
And why is that important? Where is it stated that we must use the game that is best suited for the types of play they were allegedly designed to support? And who is to say that this is the case? If I say that D&D supports my playstyle adequately, why am I "doing it wrong" by playing D&D rather than, say, Universalis?

...

Yes, and? That's precisely my point. D&D gets modded a lot. What's the problem in modding it for different reasons than the majority of gamers mod it for?

I'm not necessarily saying you are doing it wrong. I'm just saying picking the "best fit" system means there's less work in modding a poor fit. It also can avoid problems that can crop up when your given mod doesn't cover a situation well.

It's the difference between something supporting your playstyle adequately with a lot of work, to something supporting it awesomely right out of the box. You can do it anyway you want. I'm just saying there are benefits to finding the "best fit" system for you.

erikun
2011-08-29, 10:11 PM
Yes, you're right. But it seems you don't get what I'm saying. If you recommend or encourage someone to do something, you start by the assumption that they will be benefited from doing as you say. Where's the benefit in that case? What can be gained by doing so that can't be gained by experiencing your Real Life or engaging in any other sort of playstyle?
Well, I cannot slay a dragon in real life. I (supposedly) cannot be a secret agent of the government, or an olypmic bodybuilder. And I (hopefully) won't be needed to save the world from aliens or zombie ninja pirates. On the other hand, I most certainly can in a roleplaying game, via the character in the game.

And then there are the things I could do, but don't necessarily want to do. Shadowrun has thugs on illegal missions against dangerous corporations; Call of Cthulhu features characters dealing with insanity. I wouldn't want to attack a business or face borderline sanity myself, but in knowing that it is a game everyone can enjoy the otherwise ridiculous situations the characters find themselves in.

As for another playstyle, giving the player all the resources and allowing them to refuse for anything to be lost does not provide the same experience. There is no danger of the dragon or any risk of insanity if the player gets to specifically choose when it happens. As something that is superficially supposed to be similar to real life, the events that are out of a person's control (in real life) cannot be modeled when the player is in control of everything.

I could certainly write a story about a character going insane, but I cannot play a game about a character going insane without some chance of that happening without my consent.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-29, 10:24 PM
I'm not necessarily saying you are doing it wrong. I'm just saying picking the "best fit" system means there's less work in modding a poor fit. It also can avoid problems that can crop up when your given mod doesn't cover a situation well.

It's the difference between something supporting your playstyle adequately with a lot of work, to something supporting it awesomely right out of the box. You can do it anyway you want. I'm just saying there are benefits to finding the "best fit" system for you.

I agree. Picking the best fitting system available is HUGELY important for avoiding work. For instance, I would never pick D&D for an investigative storyline with little to no combat. The amount of changing I would have to do to make it support this effectively would basically consist of ripping out all rules that have to do with investigation and replacing them with new ones.

That seems like a pretty big waste of time.

ryu
2011-08-29, 10:31 PM
What is roleplay if not telling a story? The only random thing would be the dice and those are often fudged for the sake of the story by houserule. Now on the contrary a game is the ultimate in predetermined events. Lets face it actually bad things happening truly randomly as non planned events from player or dm are the single rarest things in the game. This becomes even more apparent with players intent on thinking ahead.

erikun
2011-08-29, 10:40 PM
What is roleplay if not telling a story?
Playing a game? Having an experience? I can think of a lot of reasons to come to the table beyond telling a story, especially if it is a story I've needed to put together beforehand.


The only random thing would be the dice and those are often fudged for the sake of the story by houserule. Now on the contrary a game is the ultimate in predetermined events. Lets face it actually bad things happening truly randomly as non planned events from player or dm are the single rarest things in the game. This becomes even more apparent with players intent on thinking ahead.
What is the predetermined outcome of Risk or Monopoly? Those are far more games than nearly any RPG, but I would find it very unlikely that a single player winning was predetermined from the start.

Bad things don't have to happen from purely random chance. They can happen from poor planning, poor decisions, poor information, or pretty much anything else that could possibly lead to failure. The difference is that if the player gets full control of the consequences, then there is no chance of a negative outcome that hasn't already been chosen to happen. You will always know how things end, at least relating to your character. It, by description, cannot happen any other way.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-29, 10:42 PM
Left out of this is the notion that immersion may not be viewed as a universal requirement. To use Forge terminology - GNS is already in the thread, so why not bring more in - there are several different approaches to any given character. Notable are two, called Author Stance and Actor Stance, one of which is about viewing the character as an instrument to direct in collaborative storytelling - note that immersion within said story is unnecessary at this point, as that is about how it is experienced and not created- and the other is all about immersion within a character.

I never said it was a requirement. I said that one of the things that was used as an allegedly unique characteristic of the "players have no control" playstyle was that it was more immersive. I disagreed. What I said was that there are plenty of other playstyles that allow for the same kind of immersion without necessitating players to surrender control.


Not necessarily. There is no reason to assume that the only interface with the mechanics a player has access to is through their character, this is true in unmodified D&D, to some extent, but as a general analysis it is simply wrong. I can guarantee that most GMless games have each player control far more than that, and even games with a GM might have players in possession of several characters each, non-character influence through metagame points or similar, so on and so forth.

Was that really necessary? Or were you seriously thinking I actually believed that every single game out there had the exact same rules? The post I replied to was talking about the player's resources being dependent on the existence of the character. Starting from that premise, everything I said is valid.


If you have control over a characters life that the character doesn't have over their own life, there is a distance between you and that character. You can become emotionally invested in the world, get in character, and still be immersed when you are the controller of a characters fate. That doesn't mean your immersion is any less. But it is a different kind of immersion and a different kind of 'getting into character' and no amount of willingness to sacrifice your characters things or proper use of drama is going to change that it is impossible to become a character in every way while having control over a character that the character wouldn't have, because now part of you is not the character but the controller of the character. One is no better than antoher but there is a significant difference.

That's blatantly false. Just because you can't "get into character" when given certain parameters doesn't mean that it's some sort of universal rule that applies to all people equally. If you want to say that you can't do it, that's perfectly all right. Don't tell me what I can or can't do.

Newsflash: You are always the controller of the character. You may not have the same amount of control, but when you say "my character attacks the orc," you're controlling your character. Your dychotomy is meaningless because it presumes that there exists a state where a player is at once playing the character and not controlling even the slightest aspect of it (even if that aspect is merely thoughts, impressions or feelings). When your character is Charmed, you are still controlling him, even if you are now bound to obey the spell's effects. When he is paralysed, you can control what he thinks and feels. When he is Dominated, you can roleplay the character being trapped inside his own body and watching himself do things against his will.

All of these things are you as a player being the controller of the character. How much control you have over your character may vary from table to table, but there is no point where you have absolutely no control over any aspect of your character, and are still somehow playing him.


Don't say that I implied immersion into the world or understanding of the characters mindset or emotional investment has a higher potential with one style of play because I never said or implied that. You are making presumptions about my opinions. But you can't become a different person without becoming a different person and all that entails. That sounds tautological, but by having outside control over someone there is a distinct and clear seperation.

That is simply false. You are not presenting any proof of your claims. Again, if you can't "become a different person" without surrendering control of your character, that's fine. But until you don't present proof that this is somehow universal, I'm not going to take that claim seriously.


Being master of a character has its own advantages. In many ways, you have more control over the narrative and the character is yours in all respects. But a character being yours and you being a character is different.

That's true, but one does not preclude the other, and that's what you're not proving.


I'm not necessarily saying you are doing it wrong. I'm just saying picking the "best fit" system means there's less work in modding a poor fit. It also can avoid problems that can crop up when your given mod doesn't cover a situation well.

It's the difference between something supporting your playstyle adequately with a lot of work, to something supporting it awesomely right out of the box. You can do it anyway you want. I'm just saying there are benefits to finding the "best fit" system for you.

But I never said that it required extensive modding or that it was a poor fit. I think it does its job well and the amount of modding is no different than it is for other areas.

And I'm saying that those benefits are not guaranteed. Learning a new system is a chore. It already starts with a negative impact. Even if the system does perform adequately, it may not have a sufficiently positive impact to balance the chore of learning it, so it was not a good idea to make the switch.


Well, I cannot slay a dragon in real life. I (supposedly) cannot be a secret agent of the government, or an olypmic bodybuilder. And I (hopefully) won't be needed to save the world from aliens or zombie ninja pirates. On the other hand, I most certainly can in a roleplaying game, via the character in the game.

And then there are the things I could do, but don't necessarily want to do. Shadowrun has thugs on illegal missions against dangerous corporations; Call of Cthulhu features characters dealing with insanity. I wouldn't want to attack a business or face borderline sanity myself, but in knowing that it is a game everyone can enjoy the otherwise ridiculous situations the characters find themselves in.

You don't seem to understand my question. I understand all that. That's why I roleplay. What I'm saying is that all the things you describe are not unique to the suggested playstyle. They can be achieved through other means as well.


As for another playstyle, giving the player all the resources and allowing them to refuse for anything to be lost does not provide the same experience. There is no danger of the dragon or any risk of insanity if the player gets to specifically choose when it happens. As something that is superficially supposed to be similar to real life, the events that are out of a person's control (in real life) cannot be modeled when the player is in control of everything.

There is danger of the dragon and risk of insanity. You are confusing the player with the character. In both playstyles, the character suffers the same risks and dangers. The only difference exists purely outside the story. What you say is simply not true because in both cases, the character is experiencing danger and running risks, and she doesn't know how her adventure is going to end, or what's going to happen to her or her allies.

And I have to disagree again with the second part, too. Where is the evidence that you cannot model something that happens in real life when you have control over what happens to your character? After all, if you play in a game, someone decides what happens to your character. That someone is a human being who takes inspiration from fiction, real life or his imagination. Why is there a difference between the person who comes up with the situations that befall a character? What difference does it make if the person that decides that the character wins the lottery is the DM or the player?


I could certainly write a story about a character going insane, but I cannot play a game about a character going insane without some chance of that happening without my consent.

If you're talking about yourself and only yourself, then I've nothing to say. That's your personal limitation and I respect it. However, if you're talking about as though that was actually a rule for every single person out there, I will have to ask you to present proof, because my own experiences and those of people I know contradict your statements.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-29, 10:44 PM
What is roleplay if not telling a story? The only random thing would be the dice and those are often fudged for the sake of the story by houserule. Now on the contrary a game is the ultimate in predetermined events. Lets face it actually bad things happening truly randomly as non planned events from player or dm are the single rarest things in the game. This becomes even more apparent with players intent on thinking ahead.

Well, it kinda has to involve a role and playing. So, a game where you assume some kind of role.

This doesn't really require a story at all.

ryu
2011-08-29, 10:54 PM
Assuming they don't end prematurely and no rules are broken?

Monopoly: Three people will be left poor and a forth rich through a series of trades and tactical strategies they design. Cards will be drawn from a deck that effect the game in usually predictable patterns (Hard to predict but possible). Players will also plan their moves around a semi random number generator with set limitations and rules and are also subject to the laws of Newtonian physics.

Risk: Pretty much the same thing but replace rich and poor with ruling the world and conquered.

Role is equivalent to job and yes that's still a story. Mario saves peach again is a story. It's not a well written or complex story but it is a story.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-29, 10:57 PM
That's a common game model, but it's far from the only one. Consider Shadows over Camelot, an excellent game that's pretty easy to pick up and play. It's got a few possible end states in a vanilla, unmodified game.

1. All players win(no traitors).
2. Some players win(all non traitors).
3. All players lose(no traitors).
4. Some players win(all traitors).


I didn't bother to factor in the possibility that not everyone always survives to the end of the game, since that makes the possibility set somewhat more annoyingly large. Neither did I factor in any of the optional rulesets.

Drachasor
2011-08-29, 10:58 PM
But I never said that it required extensive modding or that it was a poor fit. I think it does its job well and the amount of modding is no different than it is for other areas.

You described how you like to play. Strongly consensus-driven gaming. D&D IS horrible about that. You have to ignore how many of the combat mechanics work if they result in death or resource loss a player doesn't want. You have to make up resolution mechanics when different people want different things. Quite significantly, you have to figure out how to get all the different wants and desires of the players to come together into a seamless whole. Whether you write down your modifications or keep them in your head, it is a LOT of work. You probably just chalk up most of it to 'DMing', but you could easily cut the amount of work by a factor of 2 to 10 with the right system.

This is ignoring a lot of design assumptions that go into D&D that you might not even consider changing (even if they'd be better changed).


And I'm saying that those benefits are not guaranteed. Learning a new system is a chore. It already starts with a negative impact. Even if the system does perform adequately, it may not have a sufficiently positive impact to balance the chore of learning it, so it was not a good idea to make the switch.

D&D is one of the more complicated systems out there. Hmm, I mean maybe Shadowrun, the HERO System, and maybe Gurps (that's one I haven't played, but I hear it is complicated) are in the same ballpark more or less. The vast majority of RPGs have a much simpler and easier to learn set of rules. It isn't much of a chore to learn them really. I've played a lot of RPGs and I have to stand by the fact the right tool for the right job does wonders.

Using D&D for every sort of RPG job is like using a hammer for every job in the house. You can perhaps get all the work done, but it won't be pretty. Like I said, it is the difference between a poor fit that requires a lot of effort, and an awesome fit that requires very little.

This is why I recommended Universalis to you, btw. It's a great game, and I think you'll group will love it. It would seem to do everything you guys want, as best I can tell. DMing work? Zero. Rule complexity? Low. It is something you guys could try out for a night or two with little to no preparation beyond reading a small rules book (I don't think it is even 50 pages). Worth a try for you guys, I say.

erikun
2011-08-29, 11:06 PM
There is danger of the dragon and risk of insanity. You are confusing the player with the character.
I am not. There is no chance for the player to lose something - namely, their character - unless the player voluntarily gives the GM the ability to do so. The player is the one playing the game, not the character. There is no danger to the player of the game if they cannot lose anything.


If you're talking about yourself and only yourself, then I've nothing to say. That's your personal limitation and I respect it. However, if you're talking about as though that was actually a rule for every single person out there, I will have to ask you to present proof, because my own experiences and those of people I know contradict your statements.
What kind of a game can be played if there is no chance of the player losing anything?


Role is equivalent to job and yes that's still a story. Mario saves peach again is a story. It's not a well written or complex story but it is a story.
Or Mario dies. Or Mario runs out of time. Or Mario gets trapped in the minus world. Or Mario runs out of lives, and it's up to Toad to finish the game. Or Lavos returns, and Time Refused To Change.

The game does have different endings. It's when you take away all of them besides "Mario saves the day" that events become predetermined - because you cannot have any other conclusion.

SowZ
2011-08-29, 11:31 PM
That's blatantly false. Just because you can't "get into character" when given certain parameters doesn't mean that it's some sort of universal rule that applies to all people equally. If you want to say that you can't do it, that's perfectly all right. Don't tell me what I can or can't do.

Newsflash: You are always the controller of the character. You may not have the same amount of control, but when you say "my character attacks the orc," you're controlling your character. Your dychotomy is meaningless because it presumes that there exists a state where a player is at once playing the character and not controlling even the slightest aspect of it (even if that aspect is merely thoughts, impressions or feelings). When your character is Charmed, you are still controlling him, even if you are now bound to obey the spell's effects. When he is paralysed, you can control what he thinks and feels. When he is Dominated, you can roleplay the character being trapped inside his own body and watching himself do things against his will.

All of these things are you as a player being the controller of the character. How much control you have over your character may vary from table to table, but there is no point where you have absolutely no control over any aspect of your character, and are still somehow playing him.



That is simply false. You are not presenting any proof of your claims. Again, if you can't "become a different person" without surrendering control of your character, that's fine. But until you don't present proof that this is somehow universal, I'm not going to take that claim seriously.



That's true, but one does not preclude the other, and that's what you're not proving.


I explicitly stated neither way of play is the only one that allows getting into character. And just because I am not reiterating my points every post doesn't mean I haven't established myself earlier. I'll try and explain it to the best of my ability.

Earlier, you were insisting that players can make decisions on behalf of characters that their characters wouldn't. That is true.

But if you are playing as your character, you are your character not some sort of character controller, you want to feel every emotion your character feels, (not understand or comprehend the emotions as a writer would, but feel them,) including uncertainty and fear and the knowledge that you do not have control over what happens to you, your friends, and your stuff, (as that is what the character feels,) you can't have the penultimate control over that character because there becomes a seperation. Not relinquishing that control means you control things your character does not control, so in at least one way you are making decisions not as your character but as the player.

If you are your character without distinction during a session, it is literally impossible to make a decision your character wouldn't make or to make a decision on behalf of your character since that implies seperation. It is impossible no matter who you are since a character would only make decisions the character would make, so making a decision the character wouldn't make means you aren't fully the character.

This isn't about immersion, or understanding your character, or plot progression, or getting into character, but being your character.

This doesn't imply you are offering your players anything less engaging, (they may get more out of more narrative control than they would a full identity shift,) or that offers less character development/getting in the mind of ones character, (understanding the character is equally important in both,) or that the story being told connects less with the players emotionally, (again, some players will probably get the most out of an emotional connection with more dramatic control over the story outside of just character choices.)

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-29, 11:45 PM
I'm utterly confused. This was about DMs breaking players' stuff and players building their character so DMs can't break their stuff. Now it seems to be a discussion of social contracts and immersion. How'd the discussion get there?!

In other words:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/iobqtirt.jpeg

Knaight
2011-08-29, 11:52 PM
I'm utterly confused. This was about DMs breaking players' stuff and players building their character so DMs can't break their stuff. Now it seems to be a discussion of social contracts and immersion. How'd the discussion get there?!

Because the social construct being discussed involves a few things. Not the least of which are:

Can the GM break my stuff?
If the GM can break my stuff, what stuff can he break?
To what extent does stuff actually "break" when you break it?


Immersion gets involved in an argument about how the answers to these help or hinder it.

ryu
2011-08-29, 11:52 PM
Hey I made a set of rules for a reason. The game in question was to be played to the end with no modifications to basic rules. So yes mario has one end and about twenty kinds of set back scenarios. Still the exact same thing really only I didn't the things that would necessarily happen in between because quite frankly we don't have the time to list them in detail.

After all character respawn as the local universe feels sorry for you giving tokens in the form of lives is also a story mechanic. So are the events in question constantly repeating after every playthrough. It's a weird alternate universe with different rules that seem arbitrary and are.

Yeah topics tend to morph into ideological debates on the nature of dnd on these forums usually somewhat related to the original post. I wouldn't have it any other way honestly as these discussions tend to be thought provoking and/or hilarious.

erikun
2011-08-29, 11:56 PM
I still stand by my stance that a DM shouldn't needlessly attack a player's stuff. Rather, the player's stuff should only be under threat for a plot that specifically involves it - the character's sister being kidnapped, or enemies after the artifact in the character's possession - with the chance of recovering it, or with the players knowing beforehand that the stuff is at risk going into a situation and have the option to progress without it.

D&D does this exceptionally poorly because characters almost always carry all their stuff, and they generally cannot operate without it. If the wizard memorized a set of spells that become prepared each day - and so, could leave their spellbook behind - then the versatility of changing a spell list would be counterbalanced by the risk of losing the spellbook. If fighters could be "attuned" to a weapon and make use of those enhancements with anything at hand, then there would be much less risk of losing that from a single sunder or dropping it.

[EDIT]

Hey I made a set of rules for a reason. The game in question was to be played to the end with no modifications to basic rules. So yes mario has one end and about twenty kinds of set back scenarios. Still the exact same thing really only I didn't the things that would necessarily happen in between because quite frankly we don't have the time to list them in detail.

After all character respawn as the local universe feels sorry for you giving tokens in the form of lives is also a story mechanic. So are the events in question constantly repeating after every playthrough. It's a weird alternate universe with different rules that seem arbitrary and are.
Well, I guess that's a simplified way of looking at it. Everything ends with the campaign ending. However, I don't find myself playing games just to see the ending credits; they are notoriously poor in the Mario franchise. Rather, I'm playing the game for the active portion of the game - where I am in control of the character - and for facing challanges and successfully overcoming them. Even if I fail many times before success.

Even when talking about a story, the conclusion is not the only important part; the story leading up to it is just as important, if not more so. Perhaps a game like Tactics Ogre, with multiple endings for your different decisions in-game, would be a better example. Still, video games tend to be big on challanges and poor on options; this is why I prefer RPGs, where an actual person can provide better options.

Drachasor
2011-08-30, 12:11 AM
What kind of a game can be played if there is no chance of the player losing anything?

A game focused on creating a collaborative story is one example. There's no particular need to have enforced loss on anyone, except in cases where there is an argument among participants and no compromise can be reached.


Because the social construct being discussed involves a few things. Not the least of which are:

Can the GM break my stuff?
If the GM can break my stuff, what stuff can he break?
To what extent does stuff actually "break" when you break it?


Immersion gets involved in an argument about how the answers to these help or hinder it.

Exactly, the current discussion is about the thread topic, just at a higher level. Bad DMing rarely happens because a DM does one act that should never ever be done. More often it is because they take things to an extreme. Exactly how things should operate between the players and DM is at the heart of what is too extreme.

There are some games where characters going permanently insane are ok. There are some games where characters being forced to attack other members of the party is an inherent part of the system. There are other games where neither of these things are acceptable. The often unspoken agreements between the all game participants are at the heart of a lot of dysfunctional groups.

erikun
2011-08-30, 12:59 AM
A game focused on creating a collaborative story is one example. There's no particular need to have enforced loss on anyone, except in cases where there is an argument among participants and no compromise can be reached.
True, I guess, but that doesn't seem like much of a game. Or at least, not much of what I'm looking for in a game.

Plus, the question asked was "What experience can be modeled in [my] gamestyle that cannot be modeled in another?" My desired challange-the-player gameplay cannot be done in the proposed collaborative-storytelling playstyle.

Drachasor
2011-08-30, 01:07 AM
True, I guess, but that doesn't seem like much of a game. Or at least, not much of what I'm looking for in a game.

Plus, the question asked was "What experience can be modeled in [my] gamestyle that cannot be modeled in another?" My desired challange-the-player gameplay cannot be done in the proposed collaborative-storytelling playstyle.

More that PERHAPS it isn't what you are looking for in a game. I'm sure you actually like different types of games (though perhaps not). Collaborative storytelling can be a ton of fun, but I admit that I would not want to only do that. I like to have my tactical ability tested sometimes too. Doing both at once in a game with more than one player isn't really possible unless everyone happens to desire the same things at the same time.

I agree that how ShadowKnight does D&D would not satisfy what you are looking for. There'd be a conflict whenever a combat came up or any other challenge. You'd want your skills and the skills of the other players alone to determine the outcome. That will never be guaranteed to mesh well with anyone's narrative desires, generally speaking.

Knaight
2011-08-30, 01:10 AM
Plus, the question asked was "What experience can be modeled in [my] gamestyle that cannot be modeled in another?" My desired challange-the-player gameplay cannot be done in the proposed collaborative-storytelling playstyle.

That is very true.

Umberhulk
2011-08-30, 01:27 AM
I would never and have never continued to play with that kind of DM. Its simply immaturity. I like being challenged as a player and presenting worthy challenges as a DM, not relying on cheap, pathetic win/lose tactics.

I will not encourage a bad dm's bad habits by playing the game and would not expect anyone else to either. Better to not game than settle for that.

Earthwalker
2011-08-30, 07:26 AM
As A GM I have taken away player resources, back in the long long ago I would do this to move the story forward. Now I still do it, after all I kill characters in games thats taking alot away.

In the example of a character spending points on an ally at character creation, I may kill the NPC related to that ally feat but I would always replace said NPC with another, or allow the resource spent to go elsewhere. Same if I take items from a character they will find in a short time a replacment.

I aren't saying what I am doing is what everyone must do, just saying what I have done in the past.

After reading this thread I think I have switched from I know what ShadowKnight is saying to then completely not understanding. I know you have had to repeat yourself alot but would you mind if I asked you more questions.

You are playing your style of game and using the DnD system, I don't understand what happens if the characters get into a combat situation. Combat is dangerous and characters can die, do you run it as DnD combat or just describe what happens ?

Provengreil
2011-08-30, 09:20 AM
There is danger of the dragon and risk of insanity. You are confusing the player with the character. In both playstyles, the character suffers the same risks and dangers. The only difference exists purely outside the story. What you say is simply not true because in both cases, the character is experiencing danger and running risks, and she doesn't know how her adventure is going to end, or what's going to happen to her or her allies.


I really don't know why I'm sticking my foot into this mess again, I was done, but I do have to ask this question.

You believe a character's resources, which does, by your own admission, include his life, should never be taken without consent. If that's false, then tell me in the reply. If we assume the player desires to see his character overcome a dragon, doesn't any of the excitement and tension of the fight get lost because we know it's outcome? I'm sure you're gonna say something about roleplaying the character's tension, but when the final stage is already known I just don't see it. I do admit that this might be the difference in our playstyles showing again, but I fail to see why a gameboard and dice would even be necessary instead of just a word processor.


I'm utterly confused. This was about DMs breaking players' stuff and players building their character so DMs can't break their stuff. Now it seems to be a discussion of social contracts and immersion. How'd the discussion get there?!


Even after skimming the thread again, I couldn't tell you. what I can say is that I'm genuinely surprised it's still going hot like this. should've gotten my popcorn pages ago.

Edited for spelling.

ryu
2011-08-30, 11:36 AM
And further back again for a few other relevant things I said on games being linear. That was that things planned ahead by neither the player or dm if applicable were some of the rarest events in all gaming. From this point I was stating that most dnd was in fact predetermined like a video game. Heroes will progress according to the dms plan or players plan in a sandbox. This is going to happen if the game isn't ended prematurely right down to the respawn when necessary. The only difference I'm seeing between shadows and the most common dnd? Players collaborate with the dm and change plan on a whim to suit whatever given wants are present. Much harder to predict in the long run or mid run or even short run for perfect clarity in the right now.

SowZ
2011-08-30, 12:59 PM
As A GM I have taken away player resources, back in the long long ago I would do this to move the story forward. Now I still do it, after all I kill characters in games thats taking alot away.

In the example of a character spending points on an ally at character creation, I may kill the NPC related to that ally feat but I would always replace said NPC with another, or allow the resource spent to go elsewhere. Same if I take items from a character they will find in a short time a replacment.

I aren't saying what I am doing is what everyone must do, just saying what I have done in the past.

After reading this thread I think I have switched from I know what ShadowKnight is saying to then completely not understanding. I know you have had to repeat yourself alot but would you mind if I asked you more questions.

You are playing your style of game and using the DnD system, I don't understand what happens if the characters get into a combat situation. Combat is dangerous and characters can die, do you run it as DnD combat or just describe what happens ?

Of course, Shadowknight will probably answer best but knowing what he is talking about through experience the best way I can describe it is this. Have you ever done play by post forum roleplaying? Where there is an overarching story that everyone helps develop and killing/taking away a characters things is considered bad form unless you talk to them through email or OOC first? There is usually a thread starter who decides the results of major actions, (anyone can't just kill the big bad by typing it,) based on the thread starters interpretation of the characters abilities and story, (in this case the rules work here,) and the thread starter introduces the major plot points. But it is akin to collaborative novel writing as opposed to what most people think of when they say tabletop roleplaying. It is still roleplaying and can be very fun, but of a different form.

Knaight
2011-08-30, 01:03 PM
You believe a character's resources, which does, by your own admission, include his life, should never be taken without consent. If that's false, then tell me in the reply. If we assume the player desires to see his character overcome a dragon, doesn't any of the excitement and tension of the fight get lost because we know it's outcome?

You don't know the outcome necessarily. You merely know that the outcome doesn't involve a mechanical loss to the character. There are at least 2 people in a GM-player game, often more, with 4 seeming to be typical for a small group. Some mix of 4 different visions of events is going to play out. The dragon might die, it might successfully flee, the characters might be forced to run at a loss to their prestige, after which the dragon torches the town they were trying to protect. So on and so forth.

What Shadowknight does is draw a divide between player and character resources. A player can never lose their +1 to hit, a character can lose their sword, which, if the sword has any significance whatsoever can turn the story somewhat. Its not freeform by any stretch of the imagination, as the dice and rules still have impact upon the characters. Stuff like the character not dying is where player and character resources intersect by nature, as the character's life is both a player resource and the character's most important resource (usually).

ryu
2011-08-30, 01:07 PM
Also small pedantic point. It's the player consenting to lose his resources which include the whole of his character. His actual character is nothing but words written on paper as a concept and thus has no say in the matter.

Drachasor
2011-08-30, 01:19 PM
You believe a character's resources, which does, by your own admission, include his life, should never be taken without consent. If that's false, then tell me in the reply. If we assume the player desires to see his character overcome a dragon, doesn't any of the excitement and tension of the fight get lost because we know it's outcome? I'm sure you're gonna say something about roleplaying the character's tension, but when the final stage is already known I just don't see it. I do admit that this might be the difference in our playstyles showing again, but I fail to see why a gameboard and dice would even be necessary instead of just a word processor.

To be fair, player resource SHOULD never be taken without player consent in any game. Of course, when and where a player gives consent varies wildly, and a lot of times what a player doesn't give consent for is also unspoken. Generally this even applies to a character's dignity. When you play D&D you are probably agreeing to maybe get covered and muck and yuckiness from time to time (often we gloss over such details). You are typically NOT agreeing to allowing your character to get raped, mind-raped, and a large number of other horribly vile things. This relates to the subject of the thread of course. When a DM does cross one of these, somewhat unwritten lines, it typically will completely piss the affected players off (and even the non-affected ones).

And of course, the DM has a right to expect certain sorts of behavior from the players as well (and NOT expect certain other sorts of behaviors). A lot of this is unwritten as well and like the above, can vary greatly from group to group.

By default in D&D, when you decide to play you are giving your consent that your player might die in combat or any number of other things might happen. You are not giving consent, generally, for your character to get mutilated in some fashion (losing an arm, for example), and a large number of other ways to lose resources. Most games you do not give consent for the DM to have you reroll a level 1 character if the party is level 10 and your character dies.

Now ShadowKnight seems to have consent given in a much more explicit and immediate manner than this. He's running something akin to a cooperative storytelling game. It's pretty alien to how D&D runs by default, so I am not surprised it is coming off as very strange to people. However, I will say that even if everyone has to agree on what happens in the end (barring resolving disputes among two people), that doesn't mean such a game can't be a ton of fun.

I do admit I am a bit curious as to when dice are rolled in his game, and under what circumstances (if any) the results of the dice are ignored (say if someone fails a Save or Die and doesn't want to die, or they are hit for 50 damage and that would kill them).

SowZ
2011-08-30, 01:26 PM
To be fair, player resource SHOULD never be taken without player consent in any game. Of course, when and where a player gives consent varies wildly, and a lot of times what a player doesn't give consent for is also unspoken. Generally this even applies to a character's dignity. When you play D&D you are probably agreeing to maybe get covered and muck and yuckiness from time to time (often we gloss over such details). You are typically NOT agreeing to allowing your character to get raped, mind-raped, and a large number of other horribly vile things. This relates to the subject of the thread of course. When a DM does cross one of these, somewhat unwritten lines, it typically will completely piss the affected players off (and even the non-affected ones).

And of course, the DM has a right to expect certain sorts of behavior from the players as well (and NOT expect certain other sorts of behaviors). A lot of this is unwritten as well and like the above, can vary greatly from group to group.

By default in D&D, when you decide to play you are giving your consent that your player might die in combat or any number of other things might happen. You are not giving consent, generally, for your character to get mutilated in some fashion (losing an arm, for example), and a large number of other ways to lose resources. Most games you do not give consent for the DM to have you reroll a level 1 character if the party is level 10 and your character dies.

Now ShadowKnight seems to have consent given in a much more explicit and immediate manner than this. He's running something akin to a cooperative storytelling game. It's pretty alien to how D&D runs by default, so I am not surprised it is coming off as very strange to people. However, I will say that even if everyone has to agree on what happens in the end (barring resolving disputes among two people), that doesn't mean such a game can't be a ton of fun.

I do admit I am a bit curious as to when dice are rolled in his game, and under what circumstances (if any) the results of the dice are ignored (say if someone fails a Save or Die and doesn't want to die, or they are hit for 50 damage and that would kill them).

And then some games have mechanics for losing an arm or leg or getting scarring to face when a grenade goes off. And unless the game states it is a collaborative storytelling game, it is accepted among players, (typically,) that these things can happen and it is part of how the game works/the risk their characters take going into combat.

Yeah, I getcha and totally agree.

Knaight
2011-08-30, 01:32 PM
To be fair, player resource SHOULD never be taken without player consent in any game. Of course, when and where a player gives consent varies wildly, and a lot of times what a player doesn't give consent for is also unspoken. Generally this even applies to a character's dignity. When you play D&D you are probably agreeing to maybe get covered and muck and yuckiness from time to time (often we gloss over such details). You are typically NOT agreeing to allowing your character to get raped, mind-raped, and a large number of other horribly vile things. This relates to the subject of the thread of course. When a DM does cross one of these, somewhat unwritten lines, it typically will completely piss the affected players off (and even the non-affected ones).

...

Now ShadowKnight seems to have consent given in a much more explicit and immediate manner than this. He's running something akin to a cooperative storytelling game. It's pretty alien to how D&D runs by default, so I am not surprised it is coming off as very strange to people. However, I will say that even if everyone has to agree on what happens in the end (barring resolving disputes among two people), that doesn't mean such a game can't be a ton of fun.

I think explicit is pretty common among groups that don't have problems, at least until everyone knows where everyone else's boundaries are, taking genre and character into account. The difference with Shadowknight is that it is very much immediate, with relatively static characters mechanically. It is an approach I've played under, and an approach I've played with - for instance, plans for a highly structured well understood semi scripted non chronological game have been in place for ages. However, normally I play systems where mechanical fluctuation in small amounts is fine, and only a handful of things about a character are sacrosanct. The jeep you steal will probably be gone within two sessions*, destroyed in some spectacular fashion. The sword you got from your patron gets lost in battle, replaced first by some random spear then by the sword taken off some cultist somewhere. So on and so forth, with mechanics involved throughout.

*This was a running gag through one of my more comedic campaigns. Every jeep was named after a car through some sort of terrible pun, and with the exception of the Toyhita Prarie, not a single one lasted over three sessions.

huttj509
2011-08-30, 01:48 PM
In addition, there is some implied consent to leave the potential loss of some resources up to chance.

This is part of the reason why reactions can vary wildly between "man, I would've had that dragon, but..."

a) My strategy was foolish

b) The dice just didn't go my way

c) Some variation on "the DM wouldn't let me" (whether via plot immunity, rocks fall, pitting a cr 15 dragon against a level 5 party, etc)


Generally, the default assumption in DnD seems to be that a or b? Yeah, it happens. c gets people really riled up. Of course since some things are subjective, b can easily blend into and be perceived as c, while a player might be unwilling to admit the issue was a.

Tyndmyr
2011-08-30, 02:12 PM
I do not design encounters with the intention of taking the players toys from them.

That said, if they approach them poorly, or are unlucky, they may expend resources they did not wish to to overcome them. Hell, people might die. It happens.

That simple enough?

Kaveman26
2011-08-30, 02:29 PM
My gaming group and peers have always had a general rule that if you wanted to avoid something in game, then it was best not to provoke it.

If you built a character that abused sunder rules to auto smash items, then expect to see a villian that abused trip rules or grapple rules in return.

If it made the most sense strategically to kill an enemies mount, then expect your horse to be open game.

If you target an npc characters spellbook, expect your own to be fair game.

We once built a group of optimized truly abusive characters with our DM's blessing. He made a commitment to let the dice fall where they may and allow our supermen to play. He then proceeded to pick us apart with kobolds...

Not class level enabled kobolds. Not template advanced, not "pun pun", just standard Rules as Written kobolds. I have never dealt with more traps, or hit and run tactics ever. He picked us apart in game for days. It was like fighting a mini scaly vietcong. Collapseable tunnels... weight activated traps they couldn't set off... Volley of poison darts in the night followed by them fleeing to the dark. Our barbarian never once got a full attack. In some ways it was the most fun we had ever had and it others it was the single most frustrating experience imagineable. What made it "fair" was that it was not a CR15 dragon wiping a 3rd level party, it was a level appropriate encounter that was played to the hilt just as our characters were built to be min maxed. He never once played outside the rules (aside from maybe a bit of over intelligence) and never once invoked the invisible heavy hand. It was still DM vs Player but it was a level playing field.

The corollary to this is the DM that seemed to overgear and add class levels to every stinking thing we fought. We had four level 1 characters with fairly crappy stats and not much in starting gear. He was "generous" enough to give us a wagon and a horse to start. The paladin had 13 hps and a chain shirt he was our frontlines...and our first "random" encounter, 8 ogres. Ack. Seems like from level four and up every creature had unholy or some "evil" aligned OP weapon that we couldn't utilize but would wreck us. It was the first campaign I truly had to look up the rules for Running. We had to literally run from almost everything we fought at first. Those 8 ogres? We whipped the horse and let her run while we took pot shots with crossbows off the back of the wagon. Range penalties? pshaw! We needed natural 20's to hit anyway. 5% chance of connecting every shot. 200 crossbow bolts later I think we had wounded and or killed 2 of them. They eventually got bored and decided to stop chasing, at which point we started chasing them and the process would repeat.

Gnaeus
2011-08-30, 02:43 PM
By which I mean things like, "When making a Pathfinder wizard, always take a familiar for your Arcane Bond. If you take a bonded object, you're just begging your DM to have a monster sunder it in the middle of a fight."

An intelligent opponent SHOULD attack wizards' vulnerabilities, like bonded objects, if they can be recognized for what they are. If you go out of your way to make it look like something is a bonded object, and your DM ignores it and sunders your real cleverly concealed bonded object, you may have a problem DM.


"When writing your backstory, DON'T say that you have siblings or parents or any other sort of connection to another person. The DM WILL have the villain kidnap or threaten them at some point."

Yes, that is true (Although I have seen DMs write in beloved family members for this purpose, so omitting may not keep you safe). But...

As a PC, it is pretty much certain that your life will not be one of peaceful tranquility. You WILL be in conflict. When you have a full backstory, you are (hopefully) guiding the plot in a direction YOU think is fun. If you want to fight undead, then drop a line about how your family is on the run from an evil necromancer who wants their blood for a powerful spell, or tell about how they stole an item from them etc. This is cooperative storytelling.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-30, 03:15 PM
An intelligent opponent SHOULD attack wizards' vulnerabilities, like bonded objects, if they can be recognized for what they are. If you go out of your way to make it look like something is a bonded object, and your DM ignores it and sunders your real cleverly concealed bonded object, you may have a problem DM.
Decoys? That's actually quite clever! But how exactly do you disguise your spellbook from an enemy? If the enemy KNOWS you're a wizard, and you have multiple books but only one is your real spellbook, won't he just burn all the books just to be safe?

Yes, that is true (Although I have seen DMs write in beloved family members for this purpose, so omitting may not keep you safe). But...

As a PC, it is pretty much certain that your life will not be one of peaceful tranquility. You WILL be in conflict. When you have a full backstory, you are (hopefully) guiding the plot in a direction YOU think is fun. If you want to fight undead, then drop a line about how your family is on the run from an evil necromancer who wants their blood for a powerful spell, or tell about how they stole an item from them etc. This is cooperative storytelling.
There's a difference between that and the DM killing off your character's family in the name of cheap drama. While the "revenge for killing a family member" motivation is a classic and one you see a lot in fantasy, it's not for everyone. My current character, for example, has a huge family, with six other brothers and almost just as many sisters, and his parents are still alive on the family estate. I hold no illusions that at least one of them is going to betray me or get himself/herself killed at some point to add some seriousness to my relatively light-hearted character (a bard/cavalier who aspires to be a knight and learned everything he knows about chivalry from fairy tales, kind of like a youthful Don Quixote who can actually fight). If the DM (my brother) DOESN'T do this, I'll actually be disappointed! :smallamused:

Amphetryon
2011-08-30, 03:33 PM
Decoys? That's actually quite clever! But how exactly do you disguise your spellbook from an enemy? If the enemy KNOWS you're a wizard, and you have multiple books but only one is your real spellbook, won't he just burn all the books just to be safe?That presupposes that all your books are in one place, on one plane. Wizards with high INT should probably plan to avoid that contingency.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-30, 03:38 PM
Yeah, but you need your spellbook on you at the beginning of each day to prepare your spells. You can't visit other planes and such right at level 1!

Amphetryon
2011-08-30, 03:45 PM
Yeah, but you need your spellbook on you at the beginning of each day to prepare your spells. You can't visit other planes and such right at level 1!

A DM who has enemies destroying your spellbook and the decoys at level 1 - 3 needs a specific sort of player in order to continue having a game to run, in my experience.

Drachasor
2011-08-30, 03:49 PM
A DM who has enemies destroying your spellbook and the decoys at level 1 - 3 needs a specific sort of player in order to continue having a game to run, in my experience.

The same if he's doing it at level 7, 13, 20, or whatever, honestly. Not that the person needed at each of those levels is the same specific kind of player, necessarily.

And it isn't like destroying the wizard's spell-book at level 1-4 is a bad idea either.

SowZ
2011-08-30, 03:52 PM
Most level one enemies won't have high enough 'knowledge, arcana' to know to destroy the spellbook. Besides, with the wizard having 5 or 6 HP, going through the trouble of targetting and destroying the spellbook is usually a waste of time. A single succesul attack should knock her out.

Amphetryon
2011-08-30, 04:02 PM
The same if he's doing it at level 7, 13, 20, or whatever, honestly. Not that the person needed at each of those levels is the same specific kind of player, necessarily.

And it isn't like destroying the wizard's spell-book at level 1-4 is a bad idea either.The prime difference, to my mind, is that at levels 1 - 3, the player doesn't generally have the ability to credibly defend against the attacks. DMs that go to all that trouble once credible defenses are in place are usually a) playing a specific sort of paranoid BBEG; b) using the game's IC events to deal with OOC problems of one sort or another; or c) both a) and b).

Drachasor
2011-08-30, 04:16 PM
Most level one enemies won't have high enough 'knowledge, arcana' to know to destroy the spellbook. Besides, with the wizard having 5 or 6 HP, going through the trouble of targetting and destroying the spellbook is usually a waste of time. A single succesul attack should knock her out.

Depends on what someone going in for a kill is likely to face or someone being very sneaky can get away with. Admittedly at level ONE it might be easier to just kill the wizard. Not really any better though.


The prime difference, to my mind, is that at levels 1 - 3, the player doesn't generally have the ability to credibly defend against the attacks. DMs that go to all that trouble once credible defenses are in place are usually a) playing a specific sort of paranoid BBEG; b) using the game's IC events to deal with OOC problems of one sort or another; or c) both a) and b).

Gneas started this chain of talk above by arguing it "makes sense". I'm just saying it makes sense at level 3. I don't see how level 4 is a magical level where the wizard can defend his book really well, though. What happens then? Hmm, I don't even think there are many 3rd level spells to help with this.

My only point was that you can't go by what necessarily makes the most sense for enemies to do, because the game isn't well balanced in that regard. Best case, you get "meaningful" rocket tag -- that assumes everyone is at roughly the same skill level (as players/DM). Generally this sort of thing is purposefully overlooked as part of the willing suspension of disbelief/"social contract."

Gnaeus
2011-08-30, 04:19 PM
My bonded object has to be worn or in hand. My spellbook is safely in my backpack, wrapped up. Destroying my bonded object is a sunder roll. Destroying my spellbook probably involves sneaking into my camp at night, past guards and defenses, and the enemy who can do it could usually just murder you much more easily. Unless the DM had a good reason why he took the time to rummage through my stuff instead of rolling auto-crits+fort save or dies, I would be angry, but not because he was being too mean.



There's a difference between that and the DM killing off your character's family in the name of cheap drama. While the "revenge for killing a family member" motivation is a classic and one you see a lot in fantasy, it's not for everyone. If the DM (my brother) DOESN'T do this, I'll actually be disappointed! :smallamused:

That sounds like a preference you should discuss with the DM. If you explain that, and he does it anyway, then it is a legit grievance.



My only point was that you can't go by what necessarily makes the most sense for enemies to do, because the game isn't well balanced in that regard. Best case, you get "meaningful" rocket tag -- that assumes everyone is at roughly the same skill level (as players/DM). Generally this sort of thing is purposefully overlooked as part of the willing suspension of disbelief/"social contract."

I want enemies to act reasonably. As a PC or a DM. When I am in a fight as a PC and I watch an intelligent NPC boss deliberately go for "disables" not kills, unless he has a good IC reason to do it, I get really disgusted and want to kill my character. I try to play my NPCs or PCs to the best of their intelligence, based on their motivation, and I expect others to do the same. If an enemy knows that a PC is healing, he will take the time out for a killing blow rather than watch the PC get back into combat 2 rounds later.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-30, 04:21 PM
Lots of replies, so spoilers ahoy.


You described how you like to play. Strongly consensus-driven gaming. D&D IS horrible about that. You have to ignore how many of the combat mechanics work if they result in death or resource loss a player doesn't want. You have to make up resolution mechanics when different people want different things. Quite significantly, you have to figure out how to get all the different wants and desires of the players to come together into a seamless whole. Whether you write down your modifications or keep them in your head, it is a LOT of work. You probably just chalk up most of it to 'DMing', but you could easily cut the amount of work by a factor of 2 to 10 with the right system.

This is ignoring a lot of design assumptions that go into D&D that you might not even consider changing (even if they'd be better changed).

I have to disagree. D&D is REALLY good at restoring the character resources it so easily takes away. Greater Restoration, Remove Disease, Neutralise Poison, Heal, True Resurrection, Locate Object, Locate Creature, Wish, Miracle, and so on. Not to mention the myriad ways to protect those resources in the first place. You don't need to ignore or rewrite anything, just keep contingencies in mind.

As for the "resolving the different wants and desires of the players," that's an issue in any game system, and it's completely independent from the rules used.


D&D is one of the more complicated systems out there. Hmm, I mean maybe Shadowrun, the HERO System, and maybe Gurps (that's one I haven't played, but I hear it is complicated) are in the same ballpark more or less. The vast majority of RPGs have a much simpler and easier to learn set of rules. It isn't much of a chore to learn them really. I've played a lot of RPGs and I have to stand by the fact the right tool for the right job does wonders.

Using D&D for every sort of RPG job is like using a hammer for every job in the house. You can perhaps get all the work done, but it won't be pretty. Like I said, it is the difference between a poor fit that requires a lot of effort, and an awesome fit that requires very little.

You're completely right, but my issue is this: If I can make do with a hammer just fine, is it worth it learning how to use a hacksaw (that will also get the job done just fine)? If I'm already getting satisfactory results with Method A, where's the need to spend time and energy learning Method B? After all, if my needs are met by Method A, it may not matter how much better Method B meets them (so long as it does meet them).


This is why I recommended Universalis to you, btw. It's a great game, and I think you'll group will love it. It would seem to do everything you guys want, as best I can tell. DMing work? Zero. Rule complexity? Low. It is something you guys could try out for a night or two with little to no preparation beyond reading a small rules book (I don't think it is even 50 pages). Worth a try for you guys, I say.

And I'm definitely going to check it out, because I don't make a final judgement over something without going over it first, but I do question the principle behind it, the notion that I'm not using the right tool if I want to use a hammer instead of a hacksaw.

Or perhaps I'm merely being too defensive. I do get the spirit of the recommendation, I merely bristle at the (perceived) implication that "I'm doing it wrong."


I am not. There is no chance for the player to lose something - namely, their character - unless the player voluntarily gives the GM the ability to do so. The player is the one playing the game, not the character. There is no danger to the player of the game if they cannot lose anything.

That is correct. What I question is your assumption that helplessness and impotence are inherent to fun. That's one playing style and it's perfectly valid. Why is it not a game anymore if the player is no longer in danger? After all, hide and seek is a game that carries on until all players are found. There's no winner or loser, it's played simply for the thrill of... well, hiding and seeking. You don't play because you might not be found. You play because you don't know if you're going to be found later or right now; if those noises you're hearing are your pursuer finally realising where you are, or just the wind; if you should dare to peek and see if they're nearby, or if doing so will give away your cunning hiding spot.

There's no need to include the possibility for the player to "lose" something. The player is more than capable to empathise with her character (who does stand to lose much), or she might simply not be into that sort of thing. And if she is, she still has the choice to surrender her control to you if that's what she likes.

Everybody wins.


What kind of a game can be played if there is no chance of the player losing anything?

Plenty.


Or Mario dies. Or Mario runs out of time. Or Mario gets trapped in the minus world. Or Mario runs out of lives, and it's up to Toad to finish the game. Or Lavos returns, and Time Refused To Change.

The game does have different endings. It's when you take away all of them besides "Mario saves the day" that events become predetermined - because you cannot have any other conclusion.

But you already decide which ending happens. It's already predetermined. When you play to win, you end up with the ending you were after. Sure, you might screw up and have to do the level again, but those are minor setbacks in the long run. You want Mario to win, so you play the game and make him win, no matter how many "do overs" it takes you. If you truly left it to chance, you'd turn off the console the moment your first Mario dies and never play the game again, because that was the "ending" you got.


I explicitly stated neither way of play is the only one that allows getting into character. And just because I am not reiterating my points every post doesn't mean I haven't established myself earlier. I'll try and explain it to the best of my ability.

All right.


Earlier, you were insisting that players can make decisions on behalf of characters that their characters wouldn't. That is true.

But if you are playing as your character, you are your character not some sort of character controller, you want to feel every emotion your character feels, (not understand or comprehend the emotions as a writer would, but feel them,) including uncertainty and fear and the knowledge that you do not have control over what happens to you, your friends, and your stuff, (as that is what the character feels,) you can't have the penultimate control over that character because there becomes a seperation. Not relinquishing that control means you control things your character does not control, so in at least one way you are making decisions not as your character but as the player.

But it's like you're not reading what I'm saying. You are always your character and your character's controller simultaneously. Even if you play a game where you have less control over your character, you still have control over him! And even if you play a game where you have absolute control over your character, you still "feel every emotion your character feels." If you need external aids to better identify yourself with the character (that is, having almost no control, just like your character), that's quite all right. Some people just need help to identify themselves with characters. But that doesn't mean that it's a strict requirement.

The reason I say that you are not offering anything new to me is because I can already do all the things you described because I have control over my character. I find it extremely hard to care about a character I have no control over, because I am aware that it might be removed from me at any point, for any reason, and I become emotionally distant in order to avoid feeling bad when that happens. So in my case, I do not become closer to my character, I do not become more immersed, but in fact the exact opposite.


If you are your character without distinction during a session, it is literally impossible to make a decision your character wouldn't make or to make a decision on behalf of your character since that implies seperation. It is impossible no matter who you are since a character would only make decisions the character would make, so making a decision the character wouldn't make means you aren't fully the character.

This isn't about immersion, or understanding your character, or plot progression, or getting into character, but being your character.

So your games have absolutely no OOC moments? Because the way I see it, you're already forcing your mind to switch from being your character to being a player (the difference between IC and OOC), so to me, it's practically subconscious to relegate the decisions I make as a player to the OOC area and the decisions I make as the character to the IC area, then switch between them during the game. So I can, in fact, keep both aspects separate and only think as the character when I'm immersed in the role and think as the player when I'm not.


This doesn't imply you are offering your players anything less engaging, (they may get more out of more narrative control than they would a full identity shift,) or that offers less character development/getting in the mind of ones character, (understanding the character is equally important in both,) or that the story being told connects less with the players emotionally, (again, some players will probably get the most out of an emotional connection with more dramatic control over the story outside of just character choices.)

This presupposes that the full identity shift is impossible with greater narrative control. It's not.


I'm utterly confused. This was about DMs breaking players' stuff and players building their character so DMs can't break their stuff. Now it seems to be a discussion of social contracts and immersion. How'd the discussion get there?!

It's the same discussion, on a higher level. We're discussing causes, effects, playstyles, psychology, philosophy and game design theory in order to address the topic from a more complete point of view.

I have no idea why this is a problem. It seems like this is the sort of informative, rational intellectual discussion we need more of.


I really don't know why I'm sticking my foot into this mess again, I was done, but I do have to ask this question.

You believe a character's resources, which does, by your own admission, include his life, should never be taken without consent. If that's false, then tell me in the reply. If we assume the player desires to see his character overcome a dragon, doesn't any of the excitement and tension of the fight get lost because we know it's outcome? I'm sure you're gonna say something about roleplaying the character's tension, but when the final stage is already known I just don't see it. I do admit that this might be the difference in our playstyles showing again, but I fail to see why a gameboard and dice would even be necessary instead of just a word processor.

That's true, a character's life is, in every game system I know of, part of the player's resources.

It depends on the player. Shocking as it may sound, a player might actually not desire to see his character overcome a dragon. He might be happy for the story to go either way. He might even find it more exciting to lose and then roleplay his character's hubris being crushed and having to learn humility in a personal character arc.

This might sound surprising, but this sort of playstyle lends itself to win-win situations with the right players. If the characters succeed, yay victory! If they fail, yay character development! That's why I'm repeatedly stating I have no problems with D&D, because most of the time, we don't start with a premade story, we start with a bunch of seeds and see how they grow.


After reading this thread I think I have switched from I know what ShadowKnight is saying to then completely not understanding. I know you have had to repeat yourself alot but would you mind if I asked you more questions.

You are playing your style of game and using the DnD system, I don't understand what happens if the characters get into a combat situation. Combat is dangerous and characters can die, do you run it as DnD combat or just describe what happens ?

I don't mind answering questions, I mind it when it sounds like people are just blatantly ignoring what I'm saying. Which thankfully hasn't been the case here, since I'm rather pleased with the diverging viewpoints in the thread and the reasonable amount of respect and tolerance shown by the community. It's a pleasant surprise.

I run D&D as normal, actually. The thing is, I do my homework beforehand. Before combat happens, I cover my bases. I see what sort of resources could be removed and find contingencies to prevent that from happening or setting up schemes so that they are restored as soon as possible (such as establishing that a wealthy NPC has a (selfish? selfless?) desire to see the players live through their adventures, and is willing to pay for necessary resurrections). This is in the case where my players actually mind, of course. A lot of them don't.


What Shadowknight does is draw a divide between player and character resources. A player can never lose their +1 to hit, a character can lose their sword, which, if the sword has any significance whatsoever can turn the story somewhat. Its not freeform by any stretch of the imagination, as the dice and rules still have impact upon the characters. Stuff like the character not dying is where player and character resources intersect by nature, as the character's life is both a player resource and the character's most important resource (usually).

Exactly. I couldn't have explained it better myself.

As for death, well. Like I mentioned above, thank Wee Jas it's a revolving door.


Now ShadowKnight seems to have consent given in a much more explicit and immediate manner than this. He's running something akin to a cooperative storytelling game. It's pretty alien to how D&D runs by default, so I am not surprised it is coming off as very strange to people. However, I will say that even if everyone has to agree on what happens in the end (barring resolving disputes among two people), that doesn't mean such a game can't be a ton of fun.

I do admit I am a bit curious as to when dice are rolled in his game, and under what circumstances (if any) the results of the dice are ignored (say if someone fails a Save or Die and doesn't want to die, or they are hit for 50 damage and that would kill them).

Well, there's also the fact that plenty of players don't really get hung up on where the story goes. They're very much here for the journey, not the destination.

That's something I never leave unaddressed. I always make a point to talk to the players beforehand to see how they want me to handle that sort of thing. People's relationships with their characters and death are awfully varied. Some abhor the idea of their character dying at all, even if I assure them they're a spell away from being back. For them, I'll fudge. Maybe those 50 points become 30 and she's knocked unconscious and then ignored by enemies. Maybe she fails the save-or-die but gets struck by a less fatal effect (like sleep, paralysis, petrification and so on). Some people want their characters to die as often as they have to, but with the reassurance that there will always be a plausible reason for them to be brought back with a spell. Others feel like death is too cheap, so I have to come up with stuff for them, like their own "clawed their way back from hell" mini-storyline; while others want death to have some sort of permanent impact on the character (because they need external aid to become emotionally invested in the character and that can't happen if death doesn't have a permanent impact), so I keep a list of consequences, like becoming undead, losing Constitution, losing part of their soul and memories, having to make an infernal bargain and so on.

It's just one of those things that varies from player to player and needs to be addressed before it can become an issue.

SowZ
2011-08-30, 04:33 PM
Lots of replies, so spoilers ahoy.

Stuff.

But see, you are explicitly admitting that there is an emotion and feeling your character has, knowing that you can die at any time with no control voer it, that you, as a player, are not feeling. Saying, 'Part of me can feel what the character feels and the other part is the player, distanced' means you aren't fully being the character. Which is fine. But living as another person in another world means a lot of things. You don't have to fulfill all of those things to get most the benefits out of an identity shift but knowing that death is out of your own control is part of living in that alternate world and being another person in it because it is part of who the character is. If you are fully your character, you will never make a decision your character wouldn't make because you are your character.

Now, you explained, rationally and fully, why you get less enjoyment when you know that you can die at any time. Different people get into character and get emotionally invested/involved in the story and world in different ways. One doesn't mean more emotional fulfillment or a better story. But one advantage not having control over your characters destiny is becoming the character in that respect.


Depends on what someone going in for a kill is likely to face or someone being very sneaky can get away with. Admittedly at level ONE it might be easier to just kill the wizard. Not really any better though.


It would almost always be easier at the lowest levels. A lvl. 1 rogue should be able to one shot a lvl. 1 wizard with a sneak attack. Provoking an AoO by reaching into the wizards backpack, or trying to cut the backpack off and run away with it, (which would take multiple turns and also provoke multiple AoOs,) or trying to light the backpack on fire with a torch, (provoking an AoO,) provides more than just AoO risk but it also means that the rogue now has to deal with the spells the wizard did prepare that morning.

Or, if the wizard is asleep, Gnaeus handled that one.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-30, 04:41 PM
But see, you are explicitly admitting that there is an emotion and feeling your character has, knowing that you can die at any time with no control voer it, that you, as a player, are not feeling. Saying, 'Part of me can feel what the character feels and the other part is the player, distanced' means you aren't fully being the character. Which is fine. But living as another person in another world means a lot of things. You don't have to fulfill all of those things to get most the benefits out of an identity shift but knowing that death is out of your own control is part of living in that alternate world and being another person in it because it is part of who the character is. If you are fully your character, you will never make a decision your character wouldn't make because you are your character.

And when I am "in character," all those things are true.

What you don't seem to be getting is that I can, in fact, forget that I'm a player when I'm in character. Just like you forget that you're a player when you're in character.

The difference is that knowing that I have control over my character does not hinder my immersion, but enables it. Knowing that death is outside of my control would break my immersion, rather than enabling it. It would prevent me from becoming one with the character, like a plexiglass window.

People are different. They think differently. What is true for you is not necessarily true for me. If being helpless makes you feel more immersed in your character, that's great. It achieves the opposite effect on me. I know that I can relax and let go when I have complete control of my character. I can't relax or stop thinking like a player when I don't. When I know that my character can die at any moment, there's no time for immersion. I have to be a player at all times and metagame like mad to avoid that fate. I have to optimise and scheme because the DM is out to get me, and that means war.


Now, you explained, rationally and fully, why you get less enjoyment when you know that you can die at any time. Different people get into character and get emotionally invested/involved in the story and world in different ways. One doesn't mean more emotional fulfillment or a better story. But one advantage not having control over your characters destiny is becoming the character in that respect.

And while I recognise that the first three sentences of that post are true, the last sentence (again) presupposes that I can't become the character if I'm not helpless and impotent. That's not true because I can do it. And if I can do it, I'm sure there are others who can as well.

Drachasor
2011-08-30, 04:46 PM
You're completely right, but my issue is this: If I can make do with a hammer just fine, is it worth it learning how to use a hacksaw (that will also get the job done just fine)? If I'm already getting satisfactory results with Method A, where's the need to spend time and energy learning Method B? After all, if my needs are met by Method A, it may not matter how much better Method B meets them (so long as it does meet them).

Well, all I'm saying is you might find some things hold together better if you use screws rather than nails. There's a difference between telling someone they are "doing it wrong" and saying "this other way will probably get the same or better results with less work." I mean, I guess you could interpret the latter as me saying "you are doing it wrong", but that would make me cry. :smallfrown:

For what it is worth, note that I've never said you should stop what you are doing.

SowZ
2011-08-30, 04:50 PM
And when I am "in character," all those things are true.

What you don't seem to be getting is that I can, in fact, forget that I'm a player when I'm in character. Just like you forget that you're a player when you're in character.

The difference is that knowing that I have control over my character does not hinder my immersion, but enables it. Knowing that death is outside of my control would break my immersion, rather than enabling it. It would prevent me from becoming one with the character, like a plexiglass window.

People are different. They think differently. What is true for you is not necessarily true for me. If being helpless makes you feel more immersed in your character, that's great. It achieves the opposite effect on me. I know that I can relax and let go when I have complete control of my character. I can't relax or stop thinking like a player when I don't. When I know that my character can die at any moment, there's no time for immersion. I have to be a player at all times and metagame like mad to avoid that fate. I have to optimise and scheme because the DM is out to get me, and that means war.



And while I recognise that the first three sentences of that post are true, the last sentence (again) presupposes that I can't become the character if I'm not helpless and impotent. That's not true because I can do it. And if I can do it, I'm sure there are others who can as well.

Well, if being helpless is part of the characters plight, there is at least one part of the character you aren't feeling. Now, for you, feeling that part of your character seems like it is to the detriment of feeling all other parts of your character. So different people get into character differently. But if helplessness is part of the characters situation, whether it helps you with immersion or not is irrelevant to this- you seperate yourself from at least one part of your character. There are advantages gained including, for you personally, greater immersion and, as is true for the style of game you are discussing in general, greater narrative control.

Again, if you are just your character you can't make decisions your character wouldn't make. You may be able to become your character in all other respects.

erikun
2011-08-30, 04:50 PM
That is correct. What I question is your assumption that helplessness and impotence are inherent to fun. That's one playing style and it's perfectly valid. Why is it not a game anymore if the player is no longer in danger?
The original question was "What can be gained by doing so that can't be gained by experiencing your Real Life or engaging in any other sort of playstyle?" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11744527&postcount=178) along with "...the things you describe are not unique to the suggested playstyle. They can be achieved through other means as well." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11745865&postcount=186)

I am not questioning how someone could enjoy the game without player risk or why they would want to do so. You've done a wonderful job of explaining your position there, so thank you. :smallredface: Rather, I am saying that you can play a game with player risk involved, which does not work with a different playstyle - namely, it does not work if nothing the player possesses in-game can never be changed without player permission.

You just cannot play that way with that playstyle, or at least I do not see how you can.

Amphetryon
2011-08-30, 05:06 PM
I'm just saying it makes sense at level 3. I don't see how level 4 is a magical level where the wizard can defend his book really well, though. What happens then?Affordable extradimensional space options to stash your stuff should be viable without resorting to salty cows or 10' ladder-poles, assuming relatively standard WBL. You'll also often - not always, often - have an established base of operations by this point, which you can safeguard more thoroughly than you can the room at a flophouse or the stable's haystack.

Shadowknight12
2011-08-31, 10:55 PM
Well, all I'm saying is you might find some things hold together better if you use screws rather than nails. There's a difference between telling someone they are "doing it wrong" and saying "this other way will probably get the same or better results with less work." I mean, I guess you could interpret the latter as me saying "you are doing it wrong", but that would make me cry. :smallfrown:

For what it is worth, note that I've never said you should stop what you are doing.

Oh, okay. I'm sorry I implied otherwise.

Please don't cry. :smalltongue:


Well, if being helpless is part of the characters plight, there is at least one part of the character you aren't feeling. Now, for you, feeling that part of your character seems like it is to the detriment of feeling all other parts of your character. So different people get into character differently. But if helplessness is part of the characters situation, whether it helps you with immersion or not is irrelevant to this- you seperate yourself from at least one part of your character.

Why? Why I am not feeling my character's helplessness? Do I need to stab myself every time my character is wounded in order to feel his pain? Must I kill my loved ones if my character's loved ones are killed, so I can feel his grief? Must I look up something funny on the internet whenever my character feels giggly?

No. No, I don't. Because I have empathy.


There are advantages gained including, for you personally, greater immersion and, as is true for the style of game you are discussing in general, greater narrative control.

This is simply not true. There is nothing inherently advantageous in what you're proposing at all, because you start with the (false) assumption that the only way to achieve the level of immersion you're discussing is via that method.


Again, if you are just your character you can't make decisions your character wouldn't make. You may be able to become your character in all other respects.

That's also false. I already told you about the IC and OOC separation, with the subsequent separation of mindsets. When I'm in IC Mode, I do make only the decisions my character would make. That's what immersion is all about.



The original question was "What can be gained by doing so that can't be gained by experiencing your Real Life or engaging in any other sort of playstyle?" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11744527&postcount=178) along with "...the things you describe are not unique to the suggested playstyle. They can be achieved through other means as well." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11745865&postcount=186)

I am not questioning how someone could enjoy the game without player risk or why they would want to do so. You've done a wonderful job of explaining your position there, so thank you. :smallredface: Rather, I am saying that you can play a game with player risk involved, which does not work with a different playstyle - namely, it does not work if nothing the player possesses in-game can never be changed without player permission.

You just cannot play that way with that playstyle, or at least I do not see how you can.

No problem, I'm glad to help.

That's simply not true, however. You said it yourself "without player permission." If the player gives permission to the DM to change his resources, you have all the risk you want. After all, a casino can't take your money without your permission, otherwise it'd be robbery. You are the one that's putting your money on the line, giving the casino the permission to take it from you if you don't win their games.

erikun
2011-09-01, 01:45 PM
That's simply not true, however. You said it yourself "without player permission." If the player gives permission to the DM to change his resources, you have all the risk you want. After all, a casino can't take your money without your permission, otherwise it'd be robbery. You are the one that's putting your money on the line, giving the casino the permission to take it from you if you don't win their games.
True, although I don't see the difference between "A player must give the DM permission to change any resources at any time," and "A player's resources may be changed at any time." In fact, it seems counter to the original do-not-touch-resources playstyle, because the player must give permission to play that way. :smallconfused:

ryu
2011-09-01, 01:59 PM
The only difference is when permission is given. You dm for someone who knows how you normally play? They gave permission before even starting. Shadows playstyle however doesn't assume doing that and thus the player can give permission whenever. Beginning, middle, end for options like: Lets leave it to chance, surprise me, Kill me or x affiliated resource/ally/loved one.

erikun
2011-09-01, 02:21 PM
I guess we'll need to chalk it up to a difference of opinion, because if the permission needs to be given from the start and remain throughout, then I don't see how it is any different.

Shadowknight12
2011-09-01, 05:16 PM
True, although I don't see the difference between "A player must give the DM permission to change any resources at any time," and "A player's resources may be changed at any time." In fact, it seems counter to the original do-not-touch-resources playstyle, because the player must give permission to play that way. :smallconfused:

I have no idea what your point is, I'm sorry. Of course the player must give permission for the "I will take your resources whenever I want" style to happen. That's the entire point. A DM who takes whatever he wants without thought or care about the player is not what this playstyle is about.

I'm not saying that the DM should ask permission every single time, merely that he should make it clear before the game begins so that the player has a choice to walk out if that's not his style. I've had players who are very attached to their characters, and who do not, in fact, enjoy the prospect of them getting killed at all. Not warning them beforehand and then killing their characters off if that's what the dice say is terribly rude of me.


The only difference is when permission is given. You dm for someone who knows how you normally play? They gave permission before even starting. Shadows playstyle however doesn't assume doing that and thus the player can give permission whenever. Beginning, middle, end for options like: Lets leave it to chance, surprise me, Kill me or x affiliated resource/ally/loved one.

Also this. Very much this. Excellently explained.


I guess we'll need to chalk it up to a difference of opinion, because if the permission needs to be given from the start and remain throughout, then I don't see how it is any different.

Again, no idea what you're talking about. Any different from what?

ryu
2011-09-01, 05:37 PM
The difference between your playstyle and shadows you mean? The player can take back permission when they deem necessary, or make clear that permission given is temporary to the situation. Also permission doesn't need to be given at the start but can be given whenever the player decides to.

With your playstyle ideally the players know you and expect the frivolity and risk of it all and thus give unspoken permission by playing from the start.

In other words it can and often IS different but it does not in fact have to be on a player to player basis.

SowZ
2011-09-02, 12:57 AM
Oh, okay. I'm sorry I implied otherwise.

Please don't cry. :smalltongue:



Why? Why I am not feeling my character's helplessness? Do I need to stab myself every time my character is wounded in order to feel his pain? Must I kill my loved ones if my character's loved ones are killed, so I can feel his grief? Must I look up something funny on the internet whenever my character feels giggly?

No. No, I don't. Because I have empathy.



This is simply not true. There is nothing inherently advantageous in what you're proposing at all, because you start with the (false) assumption that the only way to achieve the level of immersion you're discussing is via that method.



That's also false. I already told you about the IC and OOC separation, with the subsequent separation of mindsets. When I'm in IC Mode, I do make only the decisions my character would make. That's what immersion is all about.




No problem, I'm glad to help.

That's simply not true, however. You said it yourself "without player permission." If the player gives permission to the DM to change his resources, you have all the risk you want. After all, a casino can't take your money without your permission, otherwise it'd be robbery. You are the one that's putting your money on the line, giving the casino the permission to take it from you if you don't win their games.


I think there is a gap in communication when it comes to the implied goals of a game.

If the goal of the game is for the player, not the character or not the player feeling the characters emotions while IC, but for the player to truly be in the same situation as the character when it comes to lack of knowledge about their fate/lack of control and for the player to have to make all decisions knowing everything that is at stake and the risks involved, giving up narrative control is the only way to do that. Because the game isn't about narrative control at that point. That isn't the goal. Survival is as much a goal as anything. Making decisions with no other interest or mindset than the character and no knowledge/powers over their life than the character has is part of achieving that goal.

You can seperate IC OOC knowledge as good as anyone. You can get in character fantastically. But if you are playing a game where you direct the characters lives with OOC control, none of that matters because you aren't fulfilling the goal. Your goals can be totally different.

ryu
2011-09-02, 11:08 AM
Only true for most of his audience and they aren't looking to play your way anyway. Remember how we mentioned how all games with a playstyle like yours ideally have the players knowing what they're getting into and giving unspoken permission as a result? Shadow can achieve the same end very easily at the start of the game for any player that wants to play that way all while allowing the others narrative control. The player in question gives permission at the start and if they're really adamant about not knowing things notes can be passed by the others when necessary. Bam his playstyle just did everything your stated goals do and still isn't ruffled by the fact. Any objections to the example?

SowZ
2011-09-02, 01:26 PM
Only true for most of his audience and they aren't looking to play your way anyway. Remember how we mentioned how all games with a playstyle like yours ideally have the players knowing what they're getting into and giving unspoken permission as a result? Shadow can achieve the same end very easily at the start of the game for any player that wants to play that way all while allowing the others narrative control. The player in question gives permission at the start and if they're really adamant about not knowing things notes can be passed by the others when necessary. Bam his playstyle just did everything your stated goals do and still isn't ruffled by the fact. Any objections to the example?

Never stated they should be playing my way or that my way is any better, I am only pointing out the primary difference between the playstyles as I see it. As a DM, his player may choose to play a different style then the rest of the group. The thing is, each of those playstyles achieves different goals. My point is that there are certain goals his playstyle cannot accomplish and visa-versa.

ryu
2011-09-02, 01:36 PM
They're not using a different playstyle though. They're using their authority as player to pretty much say surprise me. Same result different means. Namely they could in fact choose to take back permission or give very specific allowances. For example: Leave everything to chance except this one npc family member. I have plans for her story wise. In which case you have no idea what will happen to you but your sister isn't going to die. Decent chance of a rez happening but isn't there always unless you decide to roll up a new character?

SowZ
2011-09-02, 01:40 PM
They're not using a different playstyle though. They're using their authority as player to pretty much say surprise me. Same result different means. Namely they could in fact choose to take back permission or give very specific allowances. For example: Leave everything to chance except this one npc family member. I have plans for her story wise. In which case you have no idea what will happen to you but your sister isn't going to die. Decent chance of a rez happening but isn't there always unless you decide to roll up a new character?

The difference in playstyle is having no control over the story excepting control the character has or having authority over the character the character does not have.

ryu
2011-09-02, 01:49 PM
Ah but in what I just said you've taken no control of the story. You made a story for rp reasons and all while giving up basic control of your characters resources as a whole. You can still dies. As a matter of fact there's now a higher chance of dying unless someone else also left it to chance or asked to die. Same shadows playstyle. It's just that his at this point covers a wider range of utilities.

SowZ
2011-09-02, 01:50 PM
Ah but in what I just said you've taken no control of the story. You made a story for rp reasons and all while giving up basic control of your characters resources as a whole. You can still dies. As a matter of fact there's now a higher chance of dying unless someone else also left it to chance or asked to die. Same shadows playstyle. It's just that his at this point covers a wider range of utilities.

But you still have OOC power that you don't have IC. That is the difference.

ryu
2011-09-02, 02:00 PM
Wrong. You have the power to make sure she doesn't die ic as well. That's called diligence and depending on class some contingencies and enchantments. At no point did you do anything ooc that you couldn't do ic. Same thing with your own death unless your t4 or something.

Amphetryon
2011-09-02, 02:19 PM
Wrong. You have the power to make sure she doesn't die ic as well. That's called diligence and depending on class some contingencies and enchantments. At no point did you do anything ooc that you couldn't do ic. Same thing with your own death unless your t4 or something.

It's relatively difficult, in most gaming groups, to control a GM's otherwise arbitrary choice of target via IC events. With most enchantments and contingencies, if you're sufficiently far along to have a particular defense, there's someone who is a credible threat to your character with a counter to it.

Besides, by refusing OOC to give the GM the option to take that particular resource, you've negated the need for your contingencies and enchantments IC. Net result: your OOC choice created wasted IC resources.

Shadowknight12
2011-09-02, 02:19 PM
I think there is a gap in communication when it comes to the implied goals of a game.

If the goal of the game is for the player, not the character or not the player feeling the characters emotions while IC, but for the player to truly be in the same situation as the character when it comes to lack of knowledge about their fate/lack of control and for the player to have to make all decisions knowing everything that is at stake and the risks involved, giving up narrative control is the only way to do that. Because the game isn't about narrative control at that point. That isn't the goal. Survival is as much a goal as anything. Making decisions with no other interest or mindset than the character and no knowledge/powers over their life than the character has is part of achieving that goal.

Let me make something perfectly clear: You cannot be in the same situation as your character, because your character is in a different world with different occurrences that you cannot possibly replicate in this world. What you can do is to use your imagination and empathy to try and vividly experience in your mind what it would be like if you were in the character's shoes.

You can do this in almost any playstyle. Any playstyle that has an IC component (that is, a part of the gaming activity where the players try to experience what it would be like to be their characters) will achieve that same level of immersion. No matter what changes in the OOC aspect of the game, the IC part remains the same, so you cannot claim in any way that what happens OOC affects players when they're IC. I'm not saying that there aren't people who don't mix the two up, because there are, but there are also people who establish a firm division between both and do not let them mix in any way. That means that the level of immersion reached does not depend on the playstyle, but on the people at the table.

And secondly, what you're not getting is the fact that all the things that you're proposing (Caring only about survival, making decisions with no interest or mindset other than the character's, and so on) are already present in any playstyle that has an IC component. Because what you describe are what being IC is about. When a player is IC, he thinks as if he was the character, making decisions without any other information or knowledge than the character would have. That's not a virtue of your playstyle. That's what happens to ALL of us whenever we get into our characters.

Again, if you cannot get into character without external aids, that's fine. But like I said before, don't tell me I can't reach the same level of immersion as you because that's just blatantly false. When it comes to being IC, it doesn't matter what playstyle you're in, because you're focused on being immersed in the character, not on making player decisions.


You can seperate IC OOC knowledge as good as anyone. You can get in character fantastically. But if you are playing a game where you direct the characters lives with OOC control, none of that matters because you aren't fulfilling the goal. Your goals can be totally different.

Yes, but when I'm IC, my goals are the same as the character's. When I'm IC, I have the same limits, goals, feelings, knowledge and so on as my character. The only differences between our playstyles is in the OOC area, so I'd recommend you stopped bringing IC and immersion into it because that's just an argument you're not going to be able to win. :smalltongue:


Only true for most of his audience and they aren't looking to play your way anyway. Remember how we mentioned how all games with a playstyle like yours ideally have the players knowing what they're getting into and giving unspoken permission as a result? Shadow can achieve the same end very easily at the start of the game for any player that wants to play that way all while allowing the others narrative control. The player in question gives permission at the start and if they're really adamant about not knowing things notes can be passed by the others when necessary. Bam his playstyle just did everything your stated goals do and still isn't ruffled by the fact. Any objections to the example?

This is very true. That's my point. My playstyle does everything the other one can do because my players can surrender control at any point in exchange for being "surprised" or in the case they need external stimulation to get into character.


Never stated they should be playing my way or that my way is any better, I am only pointing out the primary difference between the playstyles as I see it. As a DM, his player may choose to play a different style then the rest of the group. The thing is, each of those playstyles achieves different goals. My point is that there are certain goals his playstyle cannot accomplish and visa-versa.

And I disagree.


They're not using a different playstyle though. They're using their authority as player to pretty much say surprise me. Same result different means. Namely they could in fact choose to take back permission or give very specific allowances. For example: Leave everything to chance except this one npc family member. I have plans for her story wise. In which case you have no idea what will happen to you but your sister isn't going to die. Decent chance of a rez happening but isn't there always unless you decide to roll up a new character?

That's a pretty good example, actually.


But you still have OOC power that you don't have IC. That is the difference.

And what's the problem with this? How does what happens in the OOC realm affect the IC realm at all?

ryu
2011-09-02, 02:38 PM
I was merely reacting to the claim that you couldn't also keep her from dying by solely ic means. This is completely untrue when there are spells that basically exist to say: No this person didn't really die. They're still up and well.

Now your dm can in fact fiat away your protections true but there are hundreds of ways by raw to ensure that she simply won't die.

Could you also do it ooc in shadows playstyle? Oh you betcha. Is it something you couldn't do ic by devoting resources to it? Not even close.

SowZ
2011-09-02, 02:40 PM
Let me make something perfectly clear: You cannot be in the same situation as your character, because your character is in a different world with different occurrences that you cannot possibly replicate in this world. What you can do is to use your imagination and empathy to try and vividly experience in your mind what it would be like if you were in the character's shoes.

You can do this in almost any playstyle. Any playstyle that has an IC component (that is, a part of the gaming activity where the players try to experience what it would be like to be their characters) will achieve that same level of immersion. No matter what changes in the OOC aspect of the game, the IC part remains the same, so you cannot claim in any way that what happens OOC affects players when they're IC. I'm not saying that there aren't people who don't mix the two up, because there are, but there are also people who establish a firm division between both and do not let them mix in any way. That means that the level of immersion reached does not depend on the playstyle, but on the people at the table.

And secondly, what you're not getting is the fact that all the things that you're proposing (Caring only about survival, making decisions with no interest or mindset other than the character's, and so on) are already present in any playstyle that has an IC component. Because what you describe are what being IC is about. When a player is IC, he thinks as if he was the character, making decisions without any other information or knowledge than the character would have. That's not a virtue of your playstyle. That's what happens to ALL of us whenever we get into our characters.

Again, if you cannot get into character without external aids, that's fine. But like I said before, don't tell me I can't reach the same level of immersion as you because that's just blatantly false. When it comes to being IC, it doesn't matter what playstyle you're in, because you're focused on being immersed in the character, not on making player decisions.



Yes, but when I'm IC, my goals are the same as the character's. When I'm IC, I have the same limits, goals, feelings, knowledge and so on as my character. The only differences between our playstyles is in the OOC area, so I'd recommend you stopped bringing IC and immersion into it because that's just an argument you're not going to be able to win. :smalltongue:



This is very true. That's my point. My playstyle does everything the other one can do because my players can surrender control at any point in exchange for being "surprised" or in the case they need external stimulation to get into character.



And I disagree.



That's a pretty good example, actually.



And what's the problem with this? How does what happens in the OOC realm affect the IC realm at all?

You keep thinking I am implying you have less immersion or knowledge of your character or emotional investment with your playstyle. I don't think that at all though I can understand why you got that from my post. Let me clarify. When you, as a player, make OOC decisions about what is and isn't off limits about your character you are playing the game where, at least in the OOC world, to advance the story, (and advancing the story provides the advantages of escapism, getting into character, etc. for any playstyle.) You do this through greater narrative control which is the advantage to your styele of play. But there is a distinction between player and character. Not to say you cannot get into character and forget about being the player, but there is a separate player element.

Whereas in the playstyle I am talking about, there is no distinction between the two other than your character isn't rolling dice and is actually getting stabbed. But decisions are purely IC. (Again, not so say all decisions your character makes in your style aren't IC, but you have control over decisions your character doesn't so there are OOC decisions. Back to what I was saying.) The style I am talking about still places high priority on advancing the story but it does so with less direct narrative control. There is an advantage to make up for this loss. The idea of the player making all of his decisions as the character. Not just getting IC to accomplish that, but it is partly the purpose of the game.

If I played monopoly, I could have OOC control over decisions, (I don't actually want to go bankrupt here, guys,) and also get in character as a corporate executive and only make decisions to better my monopoly empire while IC. IC and OOC could exist in monopoly, theoretically. (I don't know anyone who gets that into monopoly but it could happen...) If I play that way, though, I am not satisfying the goals of the game that most people play for. I am not using a ridiculous example to make your playstyle sound ridiculous. I've done it and enjoyed it. This isn't about immersion or story. But advancing the story purely through IC or through a mixture of IC and OOC, (as you play,) both fulfill different goals.

Does that clarify at all?

ryu
2011-09-02, 03:10 PM
So you're saying you make no ooc decisions? Wow leveling up must be awkward...

SowZ
2011-09-02, 08:16 PM
So you're saying you make no ooc decisions? Wow leveling up must be awkward...

Not really. Leveling is a representation of getting better at skills. Nothing more. I level my character up based on how they have been acting/training and how I can best represent the character concept and style mechanically.

Of course, this kind of leveling is possible and often encouraged in any style of play where roleplaying is heavily emphasized.