PDA

View Full Version : DM's who want you to Roleplay but can only say "No."



Talakeal
2014-11-29, 05:15 PM
I have been a DM for the last decade or so with very little experience as a player. I have recently tried to branch out and find a less toxic gaming group than can be found amongst my friends, and have joined three different groups, and have noticed the same problem in all three:

The DM constantly complains that the players don't RP enough, but at the same time constantly either shoots down or punishes them for doing so.

Now, all three of them do these things to lesser or greater extents, but I am only going to describe the worst offender. Assume the other two are similar in approach.

First off, he won't let of touch or look at books, dice, pencils, or character sheets when creating out characters. He makes us tell him, using only fluff terms, who and what our characters are and then he makes the character for us. He claims this is to enhance RP.

Now, this seems fine, but then he goes about either banning or changing details we give him. I am not talking about crazy shenanigans, I mean basic backgrounds and abilities identical to those possessed by sample characters in the core book. He does this with both fluff and crunch, even going so far as to change our backgrounds (and sometimes even character names) if he doesn't like them. Furthermore, when he asks us a question about our background we need to answer it on the spot, if we ask for time to think about it he just chooses for us.

When the game actually starts we are not allowed to improvise. He plays by pure RAW, and will not let us improvise things that are not in the book. For example stunts and called shots are right out unless we have a specific power. On the other hand he has no problem banning or vetoing rules that come directly from the book. I don't mean just stuff like spells and prestige classes, but also listed combat maneuvers or skill uses, for example in D&D he doesn't allow you to attack with a light weapon in a grapple or use a tower shield to take cover.

He also punishes you for RPing. If our character backgrounds are used at all it is only for him to find ways to hurt us by destroying our homes or killing off our families. There is the usual railroading and forcing us to meta-game to go along with the plot, but he also goes out of our way to punish us for acting in character. For example, during a recent session I snuck up on an enemy and decided I didn't want to stab him in the back; for I tapped him on the shoulder and waited for him to turn around to attack. The DM rules that I would be out of combat for THREE TURNS because of this (one turn to take my hand off my weapon, one turn to tap him, one turn to put my hand back on my weapon) meaning that the enemy actually got to attack me twice before I got to strike back.

Now then, he is constantly telling us that we don't RP enough and that he is tired of us being such number crunching munchkins. I can't help but feel that he is his own worst enemy in this regard, as I put every effort into RPing but it is very hard when he will not let create the concept I envision and either forbids or punishes me for trying to think in character.

As I said, this is the worst of the three, but all three exhibit very similar behaviors to lesser or greater extents. Now, these are not inexperienced DMs, they have been doing it for years and in one case decades.

/rant over.

So, TLDR version and the point: Why do DM's constantly want players to RP more and use their imaginations while at the same time refusing to cut them any slack or give up total control to the players even slightly?

Hiro Protagonest
2014-11-29, 05:24 PM
Because he's writing a novel with four other people who don't know that.

Sith_Happens
2014-11-29, 05:24 PM
Because New Mexico is apparently filled entirely with the worst RPG players ever. Seriously, with each thread I have less idea how you manage to keep trying.:smallconfused:

Talakeal
2014-11-29, 05:37 PM
Because New Mexico is apparently filled entirely with the worst RPG players ever. Seriously, with each thread I have less idea how you manage to keep trying.:smallconfused:

Actually, one of the groups is in Arizona. Also, the vast majority of horror stories I have are about the group I run which is located in California.

Still, I don't know how it happens, maybe I am just unlucky or a glass is half empty kind of person, but every time I try and find a new group to fix problems it is worst than the last. Although, so far, we haven't had any actual screaming or property destruction in any of the groups I am talking about, so there is that :)

Vitruviansquid
2014-11-29, 05:45 PM
Play a game that is not so broken that the DM constantly has to police his players... or that the DM doesn't realize is so broken he should constantly police his players >:)

But no, really, it sounds like the DM is doing all this because he is very afraid of players' min/maxing to break his game. Since he does not want to improvise challenges based on the players' abilities, he has instead decided to enforce a lot of draconic rules to keep players from getting powerful abilities to begin with. He would probably not see a reason to have these draconic rules if you were to switch to a game that is not as easily broken by min/maxing.

Roxxy
2014-11-29, 06:04 PM
It sounds like this is mostly an issue of your GM being a massive control freak about the game, and is somewhat passive aggressive. Best solution is probably to just not play with him.

Talakeal
2014-11-29, 06:10 PM
It sounds like this is mostly an issue of your GM being a massive control freak about the game, and is somewhat passive aggressive. Best solution is probably to just not play with him.

Its not just one guy though, all of the DM's I am playing under do this to some extent.

Ts_
2014-11-29, 06:24 PM
It sounds like this is mostly an issue of your GM being a massive control freak about the game, and is somewhat passive aggressive. Best solution is probably to just not play with him.
Yeah, that. If the other players are nice, kick the GM out of the game and start a new one!

Good luck!
Ts

jaydubs
2014-11-29, 06:35 PM
If I were to guess, I'd say one or multiple of the following reasons:

1. Your pool of DMs is full of controlling people for whatever reason.
2. The process by which you find DMs somehow selects for people who act in such a manner.
3. You have terrible luck.

The vast majority of the DMs I've had the pleasure of gaming with have not acted like that. Though my pool of potential DMs might be intrinsically different from yours, since I play primarily online through virtual tabletops.

And I also specifically avoid anyone with the warning signs of being a controlling DM:
-Refuses to give adequate campaign info.
-Has houserules suggesting he/she doesn't trust players. Or refuses to disclose houserules.
-Uses language suggesting an antagonistic relationship with players.

Since you can't change your luck, try changing your GM pool or be more proactive in avoiding those types of GMs. You should be just as selective when looking for a GM, as you are when you are GMing and looking for players.

mephnick
2014-11-29, 07:21 PM
First off, he won't let of touch or look at books, dice, pencils, or character sheets when creating out characters. He makes us tell him, using only fluff terms, who and what our characters are and then he makes the character for us. He claims this is to enhance RP.

http://media.tumblr.com/cbb3cb429e6f17928c7cd738dbc2cd2f/tumblr_inline_mmfqv3PS2Z1qz4rgp.gif

PendragonSpirit
2014-11-29, 09:35 PM
It doesn't sound like there's much to be done there, short of outright confronting him about it. Which, from what you have described, will probably not end well for you continued invitation to the play group. Though that might be to your benefit.

Frankly, you're more tolerant than I am. If someone told me I couldn't have a hand in creating my own character, short of giving some vague background details and a concept which may or may not be followed, I would cheerfully walk myself out of that group.

valadil
2014-11-29, 10:08 PM
I wouldn't play with that GM. I might not play with the other two either.

The GM wants you to play in a particular way. He is choosing to call it "roleplaying." Whether or not it actually is roleplaying is debatable, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he actually wants real roleplay.

Just because he wants a certain type of gameplay out of you doesn't mean he has the ability or knowledge to facilitate it. I can't really fault him for wanting to encourage roleplaying, but failing in a way that back fires.

tensai_oni
2014-11-29, 11:36 PM
If I were to guess, I'd say one or multiple of the following reasons:

1. Your pool of DMs is full of controlling people for whatever reason.
2. The process by which you find DMs somehow selects for people who act in such a manner.
3. You have terrible luck.

This.

Also a question that will help us get context. Did the other players seem okay with or at least accustomed to the DMs' shenanigans? Did you have the impression that they were okay with what is going on - or rather that they were unwilling subjects to a power trip?

Raine_Sage
2014-11-30, 12:06 AM
The worst offender of the bunch definitely sounds like the worst 0.o

You say the other two aren't as bad but similar in their approach, I'm wondering how similar they are to this one guy because sometimes the devil is in the details but either way it doesn't sound like much fun having a DM constantly sulking at you for not playing right.

Also echoing the above, how exactly do you find groups? Is there a set of criteria you use when sorting through open games that might be shooting you in the foot? I know there are some things I look for in a group (light tone, rp focused etc) that can sometimes backfire on me when no one is taking the game seriously at all or we spend four hours trying to decide how to distract guards sitting in a break room (spoiler: they were already distracted by doughnuts and not a threat).

JFahy
2014-11-30, 12:17 AM
Also a question that will help us get context. Did the other players seem okay with or at least accustomed to the DMs' shenanigans? Did you have the impression that they were okay with what is going on - or rather that they were unwilling subjects to a power trip?

This is the direction I was thinking in. Even if the campaign's a dud, you have the opportunity to reach out to other players
who might have tastes more like yours. If you're lucky several of them feel the same as you and are biting their tongues
right now.

It isn't important to stage a mutiny or 'defeat' the current DM in any way; just try to find people with whom you can get
a better campaign rolling.

Talakeal
2014-11-30, 01:00 AM
Honestly I am not looking for help, I am just providing examples to clarify my points (and blow off a little steam). I will probably end up leaving the group sooner rather than later.

I am actually more curious at the underlying cause. I can't imagine this is a unique problem, and I am really interested in figuring out why DM's say they want something from players but then punish or disallow them from doing it. Do they just not put 2 and 2 together or is there something deeper that I am not seeing?

To answer the question about the other players, they seem to be mostly newbies whom he has buffaloed into thinking he is the all knowing god of the game; although I have noticed there is a very high rate of people who stop showing up and are never heard from again. On the few occasions when a more experienced gamer joins us they seem to simply grudgingly accept it to get the game going.

Tvtyrant
2014-11-30, 01:07 AM
Well, from the building your player's characters for them I can sort of see a point to it. If you have one player who is much better at optimization then others it makes a certain sense. System mastery is a separate game from the daily playing of D&D, and people can be very good at one and very bad at the other. Punishing people who are bad at system mastery is not a good thing, and it may be the DM has had experience with frustrated new players and oppressive optimizers.

That is the most charitable explanation I could think of.

Ravens_cry
2014-11-30, 01:27 AM
A couple stuff I agree with. Called shots really don't have a place in a game that abstracts combat the way D&D does. On the other hand, the badie getting that many extra hits on you for what is more or less a fluff stunt is just plain silly.

jaydubs
2014-11-30, 01:28 AM
Honestly I am not looking for help, I am just providing examples to clarify my points (and blow off a little steam). I will probably end up leaving the group sooner rather than later.

I am actually more curious at the underlying cause. I can't imagine this is a unique problem, and I am really interested in figuring out why DM's say they want something from players but then punish or disallow them from doing it. Do they just not put 2 and 2 together or is there something deeper that I am not seeing?

Possible, progressively less generous, explanations:

1. They don't realize the cause and effect. It's actually pretty common for humans not to realize how they are personally contribution to a problem. This is just someone who's used to working a certain way, and never really sat down and thought about it. He is equally as frustrated as you are that he has to go to these extremes.

2. They have an ideal of how roleplaying should work. And that actually involves almost all RP choices being detrimental to the characters. Players are supposed to suffer negative consequences for RPing and like it. He finds it frustrating they don't, and uses heavy-handed measures in order to preserve his ideal.

3. The situation is actually how the DM wants it. He gets to both exercise control over the players, and feel like he's doing them a favor since he's just a much better roleplayer than they are. He gets an emotional reward from complaining at, belittling, shooting down ideas, and punishing players. Essentially, this is just a person with deep issues.

jedipotter
2014-11-30, 02:39 AM
I am actually more curious at the underlying cause. I can't imagine this is a unique problem, and I am really interested in figuring out why DM's say they want something from players but then punish or disallow them from doing it. Do they just not put 2 and 2 together or is there something deeper that I am not seeing?


The whole shared vision is hard. Every single person has their own idea of the definition of every single word and what it means in the game. Just think what does ''Low Magic'' mean to you, as it does not mean that to everyone. And this is a big problem for role play. The Dm would need to write a couple novels worth of text to get everyone on the same page. And without all that text, you will always have bumps.

And on top of the setting stuff, you have the game stuff. Every player has tons of unwritten things they think are rules floating around in their heads. And most DM's have things they do in the game to keep the game flowing and fun for everyone. For example, as DM I avoid having the character's ''get caught''. It just often slows the game down or gets it's stuck on a tangent. A player might think a crazy thing like ''all items listed in the book are sold at the price listed by 100% pure, good, sellers who never cheat or pull any sort of trick''.

And then you just have the overall everyone is different. Some players think it's good to ''kill anyone that threatens them'' and some DM's think ''A good person must stop and help every little old lady''.

Sith_Happens
2014-11-30, 06:03 AM
I am actually more curious at the underlying cause. I can't imagine this is a unique problem, and I am really interested in figuring out why DM's say they want something from players but then punish or disallow them from doing it. Do they just not put 2 and 2 together or is there something deeper that I am not seeing?

It has everything to do with the thing "they want from [the] players" in this particular case being "roleplaying." I couldn't tell you why, but someone actually referring to "good roleplaying" with those specific words is a near-guaranteed sign that they wouldn't recognize it if it punched them in the face.


To answer the question about the other players, they seem to be mostly newbies whom he has buffaloed into thinking he is the all knowing god of the game; although I have noticed there is a very high rate of people who stop showing up and are never heard from again.

Any chance of tracking them down? To quote from every other "Bad gaming experiences" thread ever, for every "I didn't play another RPG for [X amount of time]" there's probably at least a few "I never played RPGs again," and if you could help buck that trend on even a tiny scale it would be a wonderful thing.

Amphetryon
2014-11-30, 06:24 AM
What, exactly, happens if you do happen to touch your books, or look at your .pdfs or appropriate websites, while describing the characters you want to play? How about if you've read through them beforehand to get a good idea of the mechanics you're interested in using, and shaping the fluff details toward those mechanics?


He also punishes you for RPing. If our character backgrounds are used at all it is only for him to find ways to hurt us by destroying our homes or killing off our families. There is the usual railroading and forcing us to meta-game to go along with the plot, but he also goes out of our way to punish us for acting in character.
I'm paraphrasing because I cannot find the attribution quickly, but there's a saying regarding storytelling that 'the essence of good storytelling is to create compelling characters and make them suffer.' By incorporating elements of your characters' backgrounds, the GM is doing something quite different than what's typically called railroading, because he's actively involving the characters' interests in the plot, and allowing your characters' backgrounds and motivations to shape the story. If doing those things counts as railroading, I'm honestly curious as to what options for an actual ongoing plot wouldn't qualify.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-11-30, 07:01 AM
Its not just one guy though, all of the DM's I am playing under do this to some extent.

Disclaimer: haven't read the whole thread.

What you've described is completely unacceptable. That it is so common in your area is.... abhorrent....

Remember that no gaming is better than bad gaming.

Having read several of your previous threads, I'm impressed that you haven't given up on the hobby altogether by now. You have a staggeringly bad pool of gamers to draw from. You have my sympathy.

Jornophelanthas
2014-11-30, 08:38 AM
For a possible explanation of why all three these DMs show the same traits, let me ask you a question?

Do these three DMs know one another? Have they played together before? Perhaps the one who has been DMing for decades taught the other two everything they know about how to DM?

And if you are looking for roleplaying groups, do people you play with refer to people they have played with? Perhaps you are moving in the "wrong circles" of roleplaying, where you only meet players who only know disfunctional roleplaying groups, and who therefore only refer you to more disfunctional roleplaying groups.

Arbane
2014-11-30, 02:24 PM
I'm paraphrasing because I cannot find the attribution quickly, but there's a saying regarding storytelling that 'the essence of good storytelling is to create compelling characters and make them suffer.' By incorporating elements of your characters' backgrounds, the GM is doing something quite different than what's typically called railroading, because he's actively involving the characters' interests in the plot, and allowing your characters' backgrounds and motivations to shape the story. If doing those things counts as railroading, I'm honestly curious as to what options for an actual ongoing plot wouldn't qualify.

"And then YOUR VILLAGE IS BURNED TO THE GROUND BWAHAHAHAHA" is not exactly 'incorporating' someone's backstory. 'Expending' it might be more appropriate.

SiuiS
2014-11-30, 02:31 PM
Wow.

What I'm seeing here is a feedback loop. He wanted more Roleplay so he took away your mechanics. So you cling to the basics of what you're allowed to do, and that just makes him buckle down more because he sees you not Roleplaying and is trying to squeeze it out of you.

Unless you can get into a neutral discussion about the value of not doin all those silly things, I don't see how that can work. The make characters for you thing is cool, I've done that to great effect, but basically removing you from the game for most of the game (he does literally everything) is stupid.

Sartharina
2014-11-30, 02:37 PM
I'm paraphrasing because I cannot find the attribution quickly, but there's a saying regarding storytelling that 'the essence of good storytelling is to create compelling characters and make them suffer.' By incorporating elements of your characters' backgrounds, the GM is doing something quite different than what's typically called railroading, because he's actively involving the characters' interests in the plot, and allowing your characters' backgrounds and motivations to shape the story. If doing those things counts as railroading, I'm honestly curious as to what options for an actual ongoing plot wouldn't qualify.Well... whichever twit did say that is so far off base he scored a touchback... and it's not even relevant to RPGs.

SiuiS
2014-11-30, 02:45 PM
Because New Mexico is apparently filled entirely with the worst RPG players ever. Seriously, with each thread I have less idea how you manage to keep trying.:smallconfused:

Legit.


Actually, one of the groups is in Arizona. Also, the vast majority of horror stories I have are about the group I run which is located in California.

Still, I don't know how it happens, maybe I am just unlucky or a glass is half empty kind of person, but every time I try and find a new group to fix problems it is worst than the last. Although, so far, we haven't had any actual screaming or property destruction in any of the groups I am talking about, so there is that :)

Wait. How do you game in California? Electronically or physically? Because if physically you could probably hook up with folks through the Playground.



But no, really, it sounds like the DM is doing all this because he is very afraid of players' min/maxing to break his game. Since he does not want to improvise challenges based on the players' abilities, he has instead decided to enforce a lot of draconic rules to keep players from getting powerful abilities to begin with. He would probably not see a reason to have these draconic rules if you were to switch to a game that is not as easily broken by min/maxing.

If the DM's game is so easily broken by min/maxing to the degree of "I want to use a specific feat", he's burnt out. Someone else should step up and run a game with a different set of benchmarks.


http://media.tumblr.com/cbb3cb429e6f17928c7cd738dbc2cd2f/tumblr_inline_mmfqv3PS2Z1qz4rgp.gif

Oh? Why so? It's honestly not that bad except the forcing it every time. It's great for new players so they make characters instead of 'elf ranger' or Something, and it's also good for when an experienced player can't think of a darn thing to play. Just run them through a freeform thingy and take notes on what choices they make, build a quick skeleton from that and give it to them.


This is the direction I was thinking in. Even if the campaign's a dud, you have the opportunity to reach out to other players
who might have tastes more like yours. If you're lucky several of them feel the same as you and are biting their tongues
right now.

It isn't important to stage a mutiny or 'defeat' the current DM in any way; just try to find people with whom you can get
a better campaign rolling.

Yes. 100%.


Honestly I am not looking for help, I am just providing examples to clarify my points (and blow off a little steam). I will probably end up leaving the group sooner rather than later.

I am actually more curious at the underlying cause. I can't imagine this is a unique problem, and I am really interested in figuring out why DM's say they want something from players but then punish or disallow them from doing it. Do they just not put 2 and 2 together or is there something deeper that I am not seeing?

I honestly think it has something to do with your selection processes.



To answer the question about the oher players, they seem to be mostly newbies whom he has buffaloed into thinking he is the all knowing god of the game; although I have noticed there is a very high rate of people who stop showing up and are never heard from again. On the few occasions when a more experienced gamer joins us they seem to simply grudgingly accept it to get the game going.

Dude! Exchange contact info with the promising people who never come back! Give them all a call and say "hey, I was the other non-idiot at the table that one time. I want to play a game with non-idiots. You and a few others who were smart enough tow all away, y'all wanna get together see if we can hash out a game?" And see what happens.


A couple stuff I agree with. Called shots really don't have a place in a game that abstracts combat the way D&D does. On the other hand, the badie getting that many extra hits on you for what is more or less a fluff stunt is just plain silly.

I didn't think it was just D&D. Very system neutral language.


Well... whichever twit did say that is so far off base he scored a touchback... and it's not even relevant to RPGs.

Not really. Stories relate to RPGs, and that is a fundamental thing to storytelling. It's just not constant or so unsubtle.

Needless penalties are stupid though, aye.

mephnick
2014-11-30, 02:54 PM
Oh? Why so? It's honestly not that bad except the forcing it every time. It's great for new players so they make characters instead of 'elf ranger' or Something, and it's also good for when an experienced player can't think of a darn thing to play. Just run them through a freeform thingy and take notes on what choices they make, build a quick skeleton from that and give it to them

If I was at a new table and that idea was enforced by the DM, I would automatically assume he/she was a control freak.

Not to say if someone I play with a lot proposed the idea I wouldn't consider it. I actually do the exact same thing when players ask to take the leadership feat.

It's the kind of thing that's not inherently a terrible idea, but it would send up a major red flag about the DM if it was his go-to method. I also think going through character creation is an important part of teaching new players the game. This way seems like the DM is hiding the system from players so he can control them better.

Sartharina
2014-11-30, 03:03 PM
Eh... there are some systems that are so abusable and broken that its' better to hide the mechanics from the players, and just have them focus on what they want their character (As an imaginary person, not spreadsheet of stats) is doing in the world (as actions in a virtual world, not as interactions with a mechanical engine).

Roxxy
2014-11-30, 03:05 PM
The make characters for you thing is cool, I've done that to great effectThat really depends on the individual player. In this case, it seems like at least one player does have a problem with it. For a fair portion of us, character creation is fun. It's my favorite part of Pathfinder. I couldn't play with a GM that took that away. I'm not a hyper optimizer, either. I start with fluff and make the mechanical choices fit that fluff, even if I have to suboptimize a bit. That mechanical portion is still fun. Juggling ~30 official classes plus archetypes plus feat chains is why I stick with Pathfinder instead of moving to a simpler system. Changing my backstory in the manner described would also present a problem. Now, as a GM I understand the desire to hold to a campaign theme. Thing is, you do that by communicating with the players. If a backstory element doesn't work, tell the player why, and if the player is having trouble, help them find something that works that they like. Don't reach in and change it yourself. You may find a few players who tolerate it, especially those brand new to the game, but most of the time it'll be resented.


Oh? Why so? It's honestly not that bad except the forcing it every time. It's great for new players so they make characters instead of 'elf ranger' or Something, and it's also good for when an experienced player can't think of a darn thing to play. Just run them through a freeform thingy and take notes on what choices they make, build a quick skeleton from that and give it to them.The thing is, if you aren't new, it's kind of condescending. If I have trouble coming up with ideas, I have my own ways of handling that (Roll 3d6 or 4d6 stats in order to get a picture of what my character is like. Won't be the final stats unless I am theorycrafting, since in my experience point buy is dominant among GMs, but it gives a great initial picture of the person.). If that fails or I don't have time, log in to Mythweavers and use one of the theorycrafted characters I have there. I wouldn't want the GM deciding that I can't build my own character over a bit of writer's block.

mephnick
2014-11-30, 03:21 PM
Eh... there are some systems that are so abusable and broken that its' better to hide the mechanics from the players, and just have them focus on what they want their character (As an imaginary person, not spreadsheet of stats) is doing in the world (as actions in a virtual world, not as interactions with a mechanical engine).

If a system is broken enough that players can't be trusted to make their own characters, that system should probably be out of print..

like 3.5 :smalltongue:

Talakeal
2014-11-30, 04:08 PM
Two of the groups share several players. The problem is that it is the best group and the worst group, and if I leave one it would be really awkward to attend the other in the future.


Also, the DM in question might be afraid of players breaking his game, the problem is he has no idea what that means. He bans or heavily nerfs psionics, monks, blaster wizards, and sword and board fighters while seeing no problems with druids, divine metamagic, or shapechange. We also play several systems, none of which are 3.5 (although one if PF).

Also, I am not sure how destroying and killing off elements of your backstory is really incorporating it. I have also had DM's who kill off my characters loved ones and then get mad at me for bad roleplaying when my character becomes depressed, angry, reckless, and loses motivation to continue being a hero.

Raine_Sage
2014-11-30, 05:32 PM
He might be working off a different definition of "roleplaying than most people. One that possibly exists entirely inside of his own head and is wildly different from the commonly accepted definition. You should ask him sometime what he means when he says he wished you roleplayed more and see what kind of definition you get. I'm honestly a little curious.

It's a more common problem than you might think too. It hasn't happened with D&D for me yet, but I have one friend who is just... terrible at reading comprehension and word association. She can say one thing and mean another thing entirely and be incredibly sincere about it and then get frustrated with people who aren't following her exact made up definition of things. It sounds kind of similar to your DM.

Everything else just sounds like a really severe need for control. Or like he thinks he's failing as a DM when the characters don't behave just so.

GloatingSwine
2014-11-30, 07:38 PM
The thing is, if you aren't new, it's kind of condescending. If I have trouble coming up with ideas, I have my own ways of handling that (Roll 3d6 or 4d6 stats in order to get a picture of what my character is like. Won't be the final stats unless I am theorycrafting, since in my experience point buy is dominant among GMs, but it gives a great initial picture of the person.). If that fails or I don't have time, log in to Mythweavers and use one of the theorycrafted characters I have there. I wouldn't want the GM deciding that I can't build my own character over a bit of writer's block.

Or it could just be a "whip out some predefined toons, quick session let's go!" for when you can't do your regular thing.

WarKitty
2014-11-30, 07:47 PM
It might be worth seeing what these DMs are like as players, especially roleplaying wise.

Sith_Happens
2014-11-30, 08:03 PM
Two of the groups share several players. The problem is that it is the best group and the worst group, and if I leave one it would be really awkward to attend the other in the future.

That's easy, just tell the "worst group" that you can't make time for as many RPG groups any more because [reasons] and that, sadly, that group specifically is by far the easiest one to cut because [scheduling reasons].


He might be working off a different definition of "roleplaying" than most people. One that possibly exists entirely inside of his own head and is wildly different from the commonly accepted definition. You should ask him sometime what he means when he says he wished you roleplayed more and see what kind of definition you get. I'm honestly a little curious.

I have a pretty good idea of what the answer will be, which ties back into my comment about people who talk about "good roleplaying" in the first place. Namely, "good roleplaying" seems 95% of the time to be code for "I secretly wish this were a theater troupe rather than a gaming group but I'm either too socially awkward or too full of myself to admit it."

Amphetryon
2014-11-30, 09:31 PM
"And then YOUR VILLAGE IS BURNED TO THE GROUND BWAHAHAHAHA" is not exactly 'incorporating' someone's backstory. 'Expending' it might be more appropriate.

I missed where I said it was - or where the OP used that specific turn of phrase. Could you highlight where that quote came from, exactly? Thanks.


Well... whichever twit did say that is so far off base he scored a touchback... and it's not even relevant to RPGs.
So, latter part first, I guess you're saying there's no collaborative storytelling element to RPGs, or else things that are relevant to storytelling in general would be relevant here. Could you clarify how RPGs progress in your experience, absent any storytelling element, collaborative or otherwise? Please?

As for the attribution, spending more than 30 seconds showed me why I had trouble finding the correct attribution: It's common advice.

Dare to Challenge Your Characters (http://theeditorsblog.net/2014/01/25/dare-to-challenge-your-characters/), Make Your Characters Suffer Without Losing Your Humanity (http://oneyearnovel.com/wordpress/make-your-characters-suffer-without-losing-your-humanity/), Fiction Writing: Conflicts and Characters (http://menwithpens.ca/fiction-writing-conflicts-and-characters/), Writing in 140: Making Characters Suffer (http://bloodredpencil.blogspot.com/2012/02/writing-in-140-making-characters-suffer.html), Why Protagonists Must Suffer to be Interesting (http://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/2014/04/protagonists.html), etc.

But, if you're familiar with great stories in which the protagonists - and, hopefully, the PCs in an RPG are the protagonists - endure no suffering, no hardships, and no conflicts ('hardships' and 'conflicts' being forms of suffering) in the process of achieving their goals, do share; I'd love to see how these stories are made compelling.

Sartharina
2014-11-30, 10:45 PM
So, latter part first, I guess you're saying there's no collaborative storytelling element to RPGs, or else things that are relevant to storytelling in general would be relevant here. Could you clarify how RPGs progress in your experience, absent any storytelling element, collaborative or otherwise? Please?The DM did not create the characters. They do not belong to the DM. They are avatars and extensions of the players, instead.

mephnick
2014-11-30, 10:46 PM
. Namely, "good roleplaying" seems 95% of the time to be code for "I secretly wish this were a theater troupe rather than a gaming group but I'm either too socially awkward or too full of myself to admit it."

Yep. Angry DM put it best:


Talking in character isn’t role-playing, it is acting. Acting is a specific skill and involves specific talents. Some players are better, some players are worse, and some players are just uncomfortable with it... And so help me, if you mutter the word “immersive,” I will deck you. Because you don’t know what immersive means if you think that’s it.

Talakeal
2014-11-30, 11:28 PM
Ok, so I remembered another anecdote that really brings home what I am talking about. My character in PF is at negative HP. The cleric goes to heal me, and I describe myself staggering forward and saying "Don't worry about me, it is merely a scratch. Most of the blood is theirs (gesturing to the dead enemies); save your healing for the others." Then I described myself collapsing at the cleric's feet, feint from blood loss.

The DM immediately shouted "No! You can't do that! The rules say characters at negative HP fall unconscious INSTANTLY!"



Anyway, we gamed tonight and the other players had to cancel at the last minute so I had a long out of game talk with the DM. I didn't bring up the issue to him directly, but kind of came at it from the side. Basically it looks like the problem is two fold:

1: He likes being the center of attention. He likes to tell a story, and he likes everyone to listen to him. If a player does something to pull the spotlight away from him, he will do whatever it takes to pull it back.
2: An extreme version of the "Stormwind Fallacy". He believes that even knowing the rules is detrimental to RP, and therefore chooses to keep the books out of player hands (and keep the house rules constantly changing) so they can never fall into a min-maxxer mind set.

Sartharina
2014-11-30, 11:30 PM
Leave his group, and tell him flatly that he's not the kind of game you're looking for.

SiuiS
2014-11-30, 11:38 PM
That really depends on the individual player.

Of course. That is not what the player has a problem with though. The problem is the DM engages in collaborative character building this way, but dispenses with "collaborative". He hands a character he made to the player every time.

The technique itself is not bad. This specific execution of it is gods awful terrible.



The thing is, if you aren't new, it's kind of condescending.

Again, the execution is, but not the technique. It's no worse than pregens for a specific story or module, which is fairly commonplace in some circles.


It might be worth seeing what these DMs are like as players, especially roleplaying wise.

Yes.


That's easy, just tell the "worst group" that you can't make time for as many RPG groups any more because [reasons] and that, sadly, that group specifically is by far the easiest one to cut because [scheduling reasons].

Bonus points if at best group you talk loudly and at length about what's wrong with the other group so it trickles back.

Not really, that's terrible. Don't so things like this because women online offer you "bonus points" for it. That would be silly.



Dare to Challenge Your Characters (http://theeditorsblog.net/2014/01/25/dare-to-challenge-your-characters/), Make Your Characters Suffer Without Losing Your Humanity (http://oneyearnovel.com/wordpress/make-your-characters-suffer-without-losing-your-humanity/), Fiction Writing: Conflicts and Characters (http://menwithpens.ca/fiction-writing-conflicts-and-characters/), Writing in 140: Making Characters Suffer (http://bloodredpencil.blogspot.com/2012/02/writing-in-140-making-characters-suffer.html), Why Protagonists Must Suffer to be Interesting (http://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/2014/04/protagonists.html), etc.

But, if you're familiar with great stories in which the protagonists - and, hopefully, the PCs in an RPG are the protagonists - endure no suffering, no hardships, and no conflicts ('hardships' and 'conflicts' being forms of suffering) in the process of achieving their goals, do share; I'd love to see how these stories are made compelling.

What you're missing is that characters need to suffer, not players. I am fully able to do terrible things to my characters for story. Hel, two sessions ago I almost "retired" because my cohort introduced himself with a duel to the death over my attempt to become drow pope. He almost won. That entire session was driven because I had a backstory that kicked into high gear as soon as I hit sixth level and got leadership, no DM input at all except allowing it.

Contrast to the number of hamfisted attempts at "subtle hooks" some DMs have tried to force through suffering, or the old trope that PCs never have family or friends because they're just victims in waiting...


Yep. Angry DM put it best:

Great, that almost answers the burning question of; what is role playing? We know what it's not, and that's a good point actually. What we don't know is, what it is.

SiuiS
2014-11-30, 11:43 PM
Leave his group, and tell him flatly that he's not the kind of game you're looking for.

I have never agreed with anything more readily. Leave. Leave and never come back. Burn the way, smash the trods. Gouge from your mind's eye the records of your passing this way. Start a cult dedicated to eating the literal knowledge of this game and it's location from the minds of all but a select few. Organize a church or political body or crime syndicate that sacrifices five humans once a generation to this underworld cell where they are depleted by this "game" until,x skin and bones, the next wave arrives and they can die, and rest. Let it's weight scar your soul no longer.



... I think I have my next mid level plot.

All joking aside though. Leave. I have never in twenty five years seen this work out. This is a problem with the person. Not an issue or a trait or a quirk, but a problem. It won't fix and you shouldn't stay until it is. So just... Cut now. While you can. These people drain the life from you.

Peelee
2014-11-30, 11:45 PM
He believes that even knowing the rules is detrimental to RP

This goes so far beyond my comprehension that I feel compelled to use the word,"flabbergasted."

Roxxy
2014-12-01, 12:43 AM
Or it could just be a "whip out some predefined toons, quick session let's go!" for when you can't do your regular thing.Except coming to a game that was specifically meant to be pregens is a very different situation than is outlined here. That's just having a quick one off session. Here we have the GM acting because he doesn't want to give the players enough leeway to write their own character sheets, and being a control freak in general.

Arbane
2014-12-01, 12:49 AM
I missed where I said it was - or where the OP used that specific turn of phrase. Could you highlight where that quote came from, exactly? Thanks.

No, I cannot. But the fact that I exaggerated your idea for emphasis does not allow your nitpicking literalism to change the fact that I AM RIGHT.



Contrast to the number of hamfisted attempts at "subtle hooks" some DMs have tried to force through suffering, or the old trope that PCs never have family or friends because they're just victims in waiting...


THIS is the problem. Look at all the players who make all their characters Moody Loner Orphans - it's not (just) because they're profoundly unoriginal, it's because they know that everything on their character sheet can and (with the wrong kind of GM) WILL be used against them.

Not everyone plays RPGs to put their characters through hell.



All joking aside though. Leave. I have never in twenty five years seen this work out. This is a problem with the person. Not an issue or a trait or a quirk, but a problem. It won't fix and you shouldn't stay until it is. So just... Cut now. While you can. These people drain the life from you.

But do get contact info for any of the players who seem like they might be fun to play with, with a less-awful GM.

Pex
2014-12-01, 12:50 AM
If a system is broken enough that players can't be trusted to make their own characters, that system should probably be out of print..

like 3.5 :smalltongue:

If you can't trust your players, why are you playing with them in the first place. Game system is irrelevant.

"Players" include the DM.

Sartharina
2014-12-01, 01:01 AM
If you can't trust your players, why are you playing with them in the first place. Game system is irrelevant.
Because some people are great in-game, but absolute munchkins during char-gen.

Raine_Sage
2014-12-01, 01:21 AM
I believe Talakeal mentioned planning to leave this particularly game shortly, so dogpiling on the "Omg Leave" train isn't incredibly necessary. I can certainly get behind riding it out with a terrible DM for a little while for various reasons ranging from "Haha I can't believe this guy" to "I want to see where this goes next." Trainwrecks can be fun as long as you remain rather detached from your character and don't expect them to be treated particularly fairly.

Talakeal
2014-12-01, 01:35 AM
I believe Talakeal mentioned planning to leave this particularly game shortly, so dogpiling on the "Omg Leave" train isn't incredibly necessary. I can certainly get behind riding it out with a terrible DM for a little while for various reasons ranging from "Haha I can't believe this guy" to "I want to see where this goes next." Trainwrecks can be fun as long as you remain rather detached from your character and don't expect them to be treated particularly fairly.

Yeah, I would leave now if I could figure out how to do it. The problem is that the DM in question is a player in one of my other groups, and so I can't just be done with him and out. Also, he and the DM of the other group rotate their schedules to see what and were we are playing each week, so I can't just come up with an excuse why I can't game on a certain day.

Sartharina
2014-12-01, 01:38 AM
Don't lie or insult him - just tell him you don't enjoy his DMing style.

SiuiS
2014-12-01, 03:46 AM
I believe Talakeal mentioned planning to leave this particularly game shortly, so dogpiling on the "Omg Leave" train isn't incredibly necessary. I can certainly get behind riding it out with a terrible DM for a little while for various reasons ranging from "Haha I can't believe this guy" to "I want to see where this goes next." Trainwrecks can be fun as long as you remain rather detached from your character and don't expect them to be treated particularly fairly.

If it were any other scenario I would agree. This is not a time to be sensible, however. This is a time to pull my hair and rend my garments and wail to the heavens and cry. My mourning for Talakeal's faith in gaming humanity has begun it's seven day march to the river of ashes.


Don't lie or insult him - just tell him you don't enjoy his DMing style.

Yes. You can even make it a complement if need be. "I like munchkin things. I like breaking the game sometimes. It's better if I don't chafe in your game because I'll eventually irritate you. I don't want that. I want us to part on good terms."

Raine_Sage
2014-12-01, 03:51 AM
Yes. You can even make it a complement if need be. "I like munchkin things. I like breaking the game sometimes. It's better if I don't chafe in your game because I'll eventually irritate you. I don't want that. I want us to part on good terms."

That's actually pretty good, I'm stealing this for the next time I need to bow out of a game gracefully.

Talakeal
2014-12-01, 04:00 AM
Yes. You can even make it a complement if need be. "I like munchkin things. I like breaking the game sometimes. It's better if I don't chafe in your game because I'll eventually irritate you. I don't want that. I want us to part on good terms."

It's not you, it's me, I swear! :smallredface:

Sith_Happens
2014-12-01, 04:16 AM
If it were any other scenario I would agree. This is not a time to be sensible, however. This is a time to pull my hair and rend my garments and wail to the heavens and cry. My mourning for Talakeal's faith in gaming humanity has begun it's seven day march to the river of ashes.

Permission to maybe sig at some point?:smallcool:


Yes. You can even make it a complement if need be. "I like munchkin things. I like breaking the game sometimes. It's better if I don't chafe in your game because I'll eventually irritate you. I don't want that. I want us to part on good terms."

Or, if you don't want to call yourself a munchkin, "Not having access to the game side of things just feels too darn weird to me, so I'm gonna bow out and leave you to things rather than make you deal with my hangups" sends the same message.

Amphetryon
2014-12-01, 09:28 AM
The DM did not create the characters. They do not belong to the DM. They are avatars and extensions of the players, instead.

When did I say otherwise?


What you're missing is that characters need to suffer, not players.

Compare to this statement from you:


Well... whichever twit did say that is so far off base he scored a touchback... and it's not even relevant to RPGs.

in response to this sentiment:


'the essence of good storytelling is to create compelling characters and make them suffer.'

and explain what you're claiming I'm missing, and how your argument that 'creating compelling characters and making them (those characters) suffer' is the advice of a 'twit' who is radically 'off base' is somehow compatible with your assertion that 'characters need to suffer.' Thanks

Milodiah
2014-12-01, 10:48 AM
The title made me think of a 'system' I run 'scenarios' in, which is actually me just messing with my players while there's a break because someone ran to the bathroom or over to get some food. The point of the game is to do something the DM can't prevent in-universe. When you do, you win.

Transcript of the first session:

"You are in a field."

"I walk forward."

"You fail; there's an orc in the way."

"I turn around and go the other way."

"You fail; there's a different orc in the way."

"I look around to find an opening."

"You fail; you are encircled by orcs."

"I ask one to move."

"You fail; they are all completely deaf."

"I signal for that orc to move."

"You fail; they are all also completely blind."

"Since he's pretty much helpless then, I kill him with my sword."

"You fail; he is made of steel. They are all made of steel."

"...wha? I...climb over them."

"You fail. There are more orcs standing on top of these orcs."

"...I keep climbing!"

"You fail; it is a veritable tower of orcs ascending into the heavens like the Tower of Babylon. Your breathing becomes labored as you ascend into the atmosphere."

"...I climb back down, and dig underneath!"

"You fail; this is an ancient orc burial ground, and orcs are buried as they live; standing atop one annother's shoulders in impossibly tall towers."

"I try to squeeze between them!"

"You fail; they have since bonded at the molecular level."

"...I throw dirt at one!"

"...you succeed? Goddammit."

Metahuman1
2014-12-01, 12:38 PM
Or, if you don't want to call yourself a munchkin, "Not having access to the game side of things just feels too darn weird to me, so I'm gonna bow out and leave you to things rather than make you deal with my hangups" sends the same message.

This one works better. It at least doesn't give him actual ammo so that he can try to use you has a "Horror" story later with out having to outright lie about what was said. Which can come in handy some time. If possible, maybe have a camera running so that if it does come up later you can rub his nose in the lie publicly if he does use you as a horror story anyway.

Heemi
2014-12-01, 12:43 PM
The title made me think of a 'system' I run 'scenarios' in, which is actually me just messing with my players while there's a break because someone ran to the bathroom or over to get some food. The point of the game is to do something the DM can't prevent in-universe. When you do, you win.

Transcript of the first session:

"You are in a field."

"I walk forward."

"You fail; there's an orc in the way."

"I turn around and go the other way."

"You fail; there's a different orc in the way."

"I look around to find an opening."

"You fail; you are encircled by orcs."

"I ask one to move."

"You fail; they are all completely deaf."

"I signal for that orc to move."

"You fail; they are all also completely blind."

"Since he's pretty much helpless then, I kill him with my sword."

"You fail; he is made of steel. They are all made of steel."

"...wha? I...climb over them."

"You fail. There are more orcs standing on top of these orcs."

"...I keep climbing!"

"You fail; it is a veritable tower of orcs ascending into the heavens like the Tower of Babylon. Your breathing becomes labored as you ascend into the atmosphere."

"...I climb back down, and dig underneath!"

"You fail; this is an ancient orc burial ground, and orcs are buried as they live; standing atop one annother's shoulders in impossibly tall towers."

"I try to squeeze between them!"

"You fail; they have since bonded at the molecular level."

"...I throw dirt at one!"

"...you succeed? Goddammit."

Wicked sick! I'm gonna suggest this to my DM!

Though you could have said "You fail; it's Astroturf".

TheIronGolem
2014-12-01, 01:56 PM
Yeah, I would leave now if I could figure out how to do it. The problem is that the DM in question is a player in one of my other groups, and so I can't just be done with him and out. Also, he and the DM of the other group rotate their schedules to see what and were we are playing each week, so I can't just come up with an excuse why I can't game on a certain day.

You don't need an excuse, and you don't need to figure out "how" to leave. Just tell them you're out, and be polite about it. If anyone reacts badly, that's on them, not you.

2E Phoinex
2014-12-01, 06:41 PM
Because New Mexico is apparently filled entirely with the worst RPG players ever. Seriously, with each thread I have less idea how you manage to keep trying.:smallconfused:

The hobby just doesn't seem to be very big here. I have never met anyone outside my own group that plays the same edition of D&D as us and the people that play other editions/systems seem to just run the occasional one shot session where everyone just screws around in murder hobo mode. The comic store finally decided to start some organized play this month but I haven't been yet so I can't testify to the extent of Southern New Mexican gaming horror.

JFahy
2014-12-02, 01:42 AM
Well... whichever twit did say that is so far off base he scored a touchback... and it's not even relevant to RPGs.

Kurt Vonnegut, Eight Rules for Writing.
http://www.newyorkwritersintensive.com/morning-pages/kurt-vonneguts-8-rules-for-writing/


Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them-in order that the reader may see what they are made of.

hewhosaysfish
2014-12-02, 07:36 AM
Though you could have said "You fail; it's Astroturf".

Hah! Milodiah fails! :smallbiggrin:

Valefor Rathan
2014-12-02, 11:59 AM
/snip
The problem is that the DM in question is a player in one of my other groups, and so I can't just be done with him and out. /endsnip

What's the DM like as player? Does he play nicey-nice and is he able to share the spotlight?

Talakeal
2014-12-02, 03:38 PM
What's the DM like as player? Does he play nicey-nice and is he able to share the spotlight?

As a player he is actually pretty ok.

Away from the table he has an extremely difficult personality to deal with and so he makes ooc table chatter less fun, but this is not the appropriate place to discuss personality flaws that dont relate to gaming imo.

SiuiS
2014-12-03, 02:56 AM
It's not you, it's me, I swear! :smallredface:

Oh, I'll be the first to say when it's them. But look at the situation: it's a game everyone enjoys but you. Your standards are too high. Your sense of entitlement (note: personally I feel you're in the right on that!) makes it seem obtuse to not have these things. It's the honest truth. There's a bit of spin, but it's not a lie. It's not a deception. It's graceful.

If it was his fault, say "I'm leaving. You're a wad." :smallbiggrin:


Permission to maybe sig at some point?:smallcool:


It is so.



Or, if you don't want to call yourself a munchkin, "Not having access to the game side of things just feels too darn weird to me, so I'm gonna bow out and leave you to things rather than make you deal with my hangups" sends the same message.

There is that, but phrasing it as something he will see as a fault is part of what makes this work. It becomes him letting you to, him being magnanimous.

Solaris
2014-12-03, 07:49 AM
Might I offer a slightly different solution?
Don't blow smoke up his backside. This guy runs a game that drives players away from the hobby. You don't need to lie to him and act like the problem is you. It's entirely reasonable to tell him what you've told us - and if he gets butt-hurt and throws a temper tantrum because of some honest criticism, you're better off without him.

Allow me to draw from the professional development and corrective training I used to employ with the kids who worked for me while I offer my suggested course of action.

The way I would do this, were I in your position, would be to first write down everything I have a legitimate issue with (minor quibbles have no place in this discussion, but running the game like it's his personal novel does). This is because it's handy to not get sidetracked and forget salient points in the midst of the discussion. I'd write down not only my criticisms, but also my supporting evidence for them (both the events I can recall and the reasons why they're bad). If, however, you can remember everything and all the important little details without notes, rock on.

The key with pulling this kind of thing off is tact. When you bring this up with the DM, you're not attacking him. You're offering a constructive criticism for his artistic endeavors. He seems to have fallen into the common-for-newbies pitfall of mistaking writing a roleplaying game scenario for writing a story. Thus, I wold point out to him that the DM really isn't creating a story, he's creating a world. The story itself is a result of the cooperative efforts of the players and the DM. That's not to say a DM can't script some events - but he needs to understand that he needs to be careful about doing so on account of scripting events alters the fundamental nature of the improvisational game and takes power away from the players.

For example, the problem with the 'make the characters suffer' thing is that their suffering is supposed to endear them to the audience (for want of a better phrase). This works in most storytelling, but in an RPG such as D&D the players are the audience - and the authors. Thus, you don't need to make them suffer simply for the sake of showing their mettle. They show that when they pick fights with dragons. The only legitimate purpose would then be to provoke them into action - action against the antagonist, to be specific. This action can be attempting to repair the damage dealt or go after the bad guys, but it is action nonetheless.

Roleplaying is, after all, not storytelling in the traditional sense. It is a cooperative effort, a group of people collaborating in an improvisational way through the framework of the game's rules. Each player - not just the DM - is an author of the story, and each needs to be able to have their say.

His arbitrary decisions regarding gameplay, while technically covered under Rule 0, are so utterly absurd that they deserve no defense. At that point, he may as well abandon the 3.5E game system entirely and play a free-form game.

If you feel it necessary to soften the blow to his feelings, couch your criticisms in praise. The compliment-criticize-compliment thing has become a cliche in management circles for a reason. It works rather well, if done properly; lowers their defenses, and leaves them without the sour taste in their mouth that results in them simply discounting your critique as a baseless attack. However, it seems that coming up with some items to praise him on may be more an effort in creative writing than he's put into his entire setting.

You've already touched on the Stormwind Fallacy with him, and on his narcissism (non-clinical sense, of course). This is good. Assuming he's not a proper narcissist but is actually just horribly misguided and has been truly and deeply burned by other players, having someone call him out on his bullpucky might be the catalyst for his realizing that he is, in fact, a truly horrible DM (even if he is a decent fiction writer).

Amphetryon
2014-12-03, 08:44 AM
Might I offer a slightly different solution?
Don't blow smoke up his backside. This guy runs a game that drives players away from the hobby. You don't need to lie to him and act like the problem is you. It's entirely reasonable to tell him what you've told us - and if he gets butt-hurt and throws a temper tantrum because of some honest criticism, you're better off without him.

Allow me to draw from the professional development and corrective training I used to employ with the kids who worked for me while I offer my suggested course of action.

The way I would do this, were I in your position, would be to first write down everything I have a legitimate issue with (minor quibbles have no place in this discussion, but running the game like it's his personal novel does). This is because it's handy to not get sidetracked and forget salient points in the midst of the discussion. I'd write down not only my criticisms, but also my supporting evidence for them (both the events I can recall and the reasons why they're bad). If, however, you can remember everything and all the important little details without notes, rock on.

The key with pulling this kind of thing off is tact. When you bring this up with the DM, you're not attacking him. You're offering a constructive criticism for his artistic endeavors. He seems to have fallen into the common-for-newbies pitfall of mistaking writing a roleplaying game scenario for writing a story. Thus, I wold point out to him that the DM really isn't creating a story, he's creating a world. The story itself is a result of the cooperative efforts of the players and the DM. That's not to say a DM can't script some events - but he needs to understand that he needs to be careful about doing so on account of scripting events alters the fundamental nature of the improvisational game and takes power away from the players.

For example, the problem with the 'make the characters suffer' thing is that their suffering is supposed to endear them to the audience (for want of a better phrase). This works in most storytelling, but in an RPG such as D&D the players are the audience - and the authors. Thus, you don't need to make them suffer simply for the sake of showing their mettle. They show that when they pick fights with dragons. The only legitimate purpose would then be to provoke them into action - action against the antagonist, to be specific. This action can be attempting to repair the damage dealt or go after the bad guys, but it is action nonetheless.

Roleplaying is, after all, not storytelling in the traditional sense. It is a cooperative effort, a group of people collaborating in an improvisational way through the framework of the game's rules. Each player - not just the DM - is an author of the story, and each needs to be able to have their say.

His arbitrary decisions regarding gameplay, while technically covered under Rule 0, are so utterly absurd that they deserve no defense. At that point, he may as well abandon the 3.5E game system entirely and play a free-form game.

If you feel it necessary to soften the blow to his feelings, couch your criticisms in praise. The compliment-criticize-compliment thing has become a cliche in management circles for a reason. It works rather well, if done properly; lowers their defenses, and leaves them without the sour taste in their mouth that results in them simply discounting your critique as a baseless attack. However, it seems that coming up with some items to praise him on may be more an effort in creative writing than he's put into his entire setting.

You've already touched on the Stormwind Fallacy with him, and on his narcissism (non-clinical sense, of course). This is good. Assuming he's not a proper narcissist but is actually just horribly misguided and has been truly and deeply burned by other players, having someone call him out on his bullpucky might be the catalyst for his realizing that he is, in fact, a truly horrible DM (even if he is a decent fiction writer).

Was there something from what the OP has posted - in this thread, or one of several others regarding this group - that gives you some indication that the GM in question will take 'honest criticism' as anything more than whining from a player who is simply 'in the wrong' from the GM's perspective?

Solaris
2014-12-03, 08:56 AM
Was there something from what the OP has posted - in this thread, or one of several others regarding this group - that gives you some indication that the GM in question will take 'honest criticism' as anything more than whining from a player who is simply 'in the wrong' from the GM's perspective?

I haven't seen any of the others, but no, not even a little bit. I think the guy's a narcissist who deserves what ever humiliations I can come up with, up to and including total ostracizing from the group, but I may well be a bit more mean-spirited than the OP and more willing to go for no gaming instead of bad gaming.

Alberic Strein
2014-12-03, 08:58 AM
Was there something from what the OP has posted - in this thread, or one of several others regarding this group - that gives you some indication that the GM in question will take 'honest criticism' as anything more than whining from a player who is simply 'in the wrong' from the GM's perspective?

Inherent faith in humanity?

All joking aside, there was a discussion about making characters suffer. I believe it is important. Without the feeling of suffering, a grueling ordeal is no different from a theme park ride. You need to give the players motivation, challenge, make them want to accomplish something in this virtual world

The issue is that players have a tendency to be touchy princesses (now, don't let the prince'ss' part trick you, men do it just as much as women in my experience) and whine. Whining about encounters being too difficult while charging in without using the system's possibilities, whining when the bad guys get the drop on them, whining when they, through ingenuity barely survive a difficult situation, when the odds start looking nigh-impossible, etc, etc, etc...

Now, this is not Talakeal's issue (or rather his DM's) but it can be quite hard to salvage a session through all that and not start seeing whining where there is actually constructive criticism.

I say do what Solaris proposes. If the DM takes it badly, well it still wouldn't be too late to leg it. And maybe, somewhere down the road, your DM will come to the realization that his behaviour was sub-par.

Basically you lose nothing and open yourself up to positive outcomes.

Sartharina
2014-12-03, 02:53 PM
There is that, but phrasing it as something he will see as a fault is part of what makes this work. It becomes him letting you to, him being magnanimous.This is an unnecessary step, and possibly harmful to the game relationship. Straight and simple honesty without sanctimony is best - no need for him to throw out his own diginity (As calling oneself a munchkin does), or trash the dignity of his DM(As calling him a TerriBadWrongNoFun DM does).

There's also room for compromise, if it makes the DM aware of how controlling he comes across to you. I strongly suspect both of you have been burned by bad experiences.

I agree largely with everything Solaris said, except for this one sticking point:

His arbitrary decisions regarding gameplay, while technically covered under Rule 0, are so utterly absurd that they deserve no defense. At that point, he may as well abandon the 3.5E game system entirely and play a free-form game.Free-form does not provide any resolution system for situations with ambiguous outcomes. RPGS do, and it's handy to have them around when you come across a system that needs an impartial and mindless arbiter to decide what happens in a situation. In this sort of game, though, there's no sense buying a new system that does what you want when you can hack or merely consult a system you already have for the resolution.

"We're playing free form, but with D&D Character Sheets and dice occasionally consulted to resolve ambiguous outcomes" is a perfectly valid way to run a game. It's just not for all players (Just as not all players are for running a game)

Solaris
2014-12-03, 09:44 PM
I agree largely with everything Solaris said, except for this one sticking point:
Free-form does not provide any resolution system for situations with ambiguous outcomes. RPGS do, and it's handy to have them around when you come across a system that needs an impartial and mindless arbiter to decide what happens in a situation. In this sort of game, though, there's no sense buying a new system that does what you want when you can hack or merely consult a system you already have for the resolution.

"We're playing free form, but with D&D Character Sheets and dice occasionally consulted to resolve ambiguous outcomes" is a perfectly valid way to run a game. It's just not for all players (Just as not all players are for running a game)

This point is why I don't run free-form games myself, except in a very narrow set of circumstances. "Without the players knowing about it" isn't within that set of circumstances. I agree that it's an entirely valid way to play (I really like it for play-by-post games, so we don't get slowed down by unimportant dice rolls all the time), and I've both run and played varying degrees of free-form games beforehand - but it doesn't work when the extent of free-formity is entirely summed up within arbitrarily-enforced DM fiat.

KnotKnormal
2014-12-04, 11:08 AM
Actually, one of the groups is in Arizona. Also, the vast majority of horror stories I have are about the group I run which is located in California.

Still, I don't know how it happens, maybe I am just unlucky or a glass is half empty kind of person, but every time I try and find a new group to fix problems it is worst than the last. Although, so far, we haven't had any actual screaming or property destruction in any of the groups I am talking about, so there is that :)

Visiting Pennsylvania any time soon? Would be more then happy to run a game with you. I need players anyway so you'll fit it well.

ReaderAt2046
2014-12-07, 04:57 PM
Kurt Vonnegut, Eight Rules for Writing.
http://www.newyorkwritersintensive.com/morning-pages/kurt-vonneguts-8-rules-for-writing/

That's for writers, not DMs. The two are much less alike than some think.

Talakeal
2014-12-07, 05:31 PM
Visiting Pennsylvania any time soon? Would be more then happy to run a game with you. I need players anyway so you'll fit it well.

Thanks, but I am a west coast guy born and bred. If I do ever end up back East I will let you know :)

jaydubs
2014-12-07, 06:24 PM
Kurt Vonnegut, Eight Rules for Writing.
http://www.newyorkwritersintensive.com/morning-pages/kurt-vonneguts-8-rules-for-writing/

Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them-in order that the reader may see what they are made of.


That's for writers, not DMs. The two are much less alike than some think.

My gut agrees. A writer's job is to entertain (or otherwise stimulate) his reader. Suffering incurred by his characters is irrelevant, since they aren't actually real people.

A DM's job is to entertain his players, not some outside audience. Making his lead characters (the PCs hopefully) suffer is only a good thing if it's done in a way that's still fun for the players.

A DM that runs a campaign that has a fantastic story, but where the players don't have a good time, has done a bad job DMing. A DM that runs a campaign with an awful story, but where the players have a great time, has done a good job DMing.

This also seems a good spot to mention DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612). A fairly humorous read that demonstrates how a good story can be a terrible campaign experience. It's chock full of character imbalance, an annoying and imbalanced DMPC, railroading, and other DM sins that work just fine in a story, but often upsets players.

Amphetryon
2014-12-07, 10:14 PM
That's for writers, not DMs. The two are much less alike than some think.

In what ways, specifically, is an RPG unlike collaborative storytelling? In which ways, specifically, do the PCs in an RPG differ from protagonists in a collaboratively-told story?

ReaderAt2046
2014-12-07, 10:30 PM
In what ways, specifically, is an RPG unlike collaborative storytelling? In which ways, specifically, do the PCs in an RPG differ from protagonists in a collaboratively-told story?

In the first place, as pointed out above, a writer's audience is the end readers, whereas the DM's audience is the players. An RPG player identifies with one specific character to a far greater degree than any reader or writer. A writer stands outside his characters, and if something bad happens to one of his characters he doesn't necessarily feel it happens to him personally, plus he has other characters he can work with. But a player in an RPG has only the one character, and to a large degree what befalls that character befalls him.

Or to approach the issue from a different angle, I think we can all agree that it's a good thing for a writer to plan out his plot in advance and make sure everything fits together neatly. But in a GM, we call that railroading and hate it.

I guess my main argument is not that an RPG is all that different from collaborative storytelling. Rather, I would say that collaborative storytelling is very different from the kind of writing that Vonnegut was talking about, and an RPG even more so. Writing and DMing an RPG are on opposite ends of a spectrum, with collaborative storytelling about 4/5 of the way to the RPG side.

Sartharina
2014-12-07, 11:49 PM
In what ways, specifically, is an RPG unlike collaborative storytelling? First off - the players are the audience. Second - the players only have control of the actions of a single character. Third - dice adjudicate direction of the 'story'. Fourth - If a character is disabled, the player loses almost all ability to affect the story.


In which ways, specifically, do the PCs in an RPG differ from protagonists in a collaboratively-told story?
First off... Player characters are avatars of their players. second - if the story starts going in a direction one author disagrees with, the only option he has to change it is through his character's actions. Third - if a protagonist is disabled, the author in charge of writing it loses his collaborative storytelling privilege until he gets a new one, and all plot threads from the old one are wasted.

There are a hell of a lot more

Talakeal
2014-12-08, 12:09 AM
Well, my specific problem has been "resolved".

I quit the game, perhaps permanently.

So, one thing I haven't mentioned in this thread (because it wasn't directly related to gaming) is that the DM in question has... issues. If you make a statement in his presence (whether or not you are actually talking to him) he will correct you whether or not he has any idea what he is talking about. I don't know if he is a compulsive liar, or just has ego issues and always needs to be the center of attention, but he literally corrects every statement you make, usually with complete nonsense. Then he argues adamantly and refuses to back down, even if you show him proof in black and white.

So tonight before the game while waiting for another player I had been talking with him for about an hour, and everything I say he shoots down and "corrects" me with nonsense. I was letting it slide, mostly, but was getting fed up. Finally when the game started he made the statement that when rolling a single dice you modifier is irrelevant, as there is no probability curve when rolling a single dice, and you are just as likely to fail if you need to roll a 2+ as a 20+. This is of course nonsense, to such a degree that I almost don't want to type it because people will assume I am either lying or just not understanding him. But, believe me, that is actually what he was saying. (I think he was trying to explain the gambler's fallacy to me but he had no idea what that actually meant, but I have no idea how someone could think something so completely crazy).

After trying to discuss this rationally with him for 10 minutes he eventually shouted "I know what I am talking about! I have a PHD in math and worked as a mathematician for decades! Don't question me about math!*"

To which I responded "I have had enough of your BS. I can't take it anymore. I am going home." Then I walked out of the game. I don't think I ever want to come back, and doubt he would welcome me back even if I did. So that problem is solved.

However, that creates a bigger problem. As I said, we are both players in another GM's group. I am having a tremendous amount of fun in that group, but I have to miss next weeks session do to holiday travel. He has been gaming with them a lot longer than I have, and I am afraid he will tell them a twisted version of the story (as I have said he doesn't appear to be on a first name basis with the concept of the truth) and do something to make me not welcome back in the game where I really am having a lot of fun. I sent the DM an email explaining the situation, but seeing as I am the newcomer in the group I am really afraid that I won't be able to continue, which is going to hurt me a lot. Anyone got any advice on that front?


*By the way, he has also insisted that the advantage / disadvantage system in 5E is equivalent to a +1 bonus for as long as I have known him, and claims to have proved it with a computer simulation. So that shows you the level of math understanding he is working with here.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-08, 12:38 AM
A PHD in math? Really? Wow.

Did you ask him to present the diploma? You know, the document presented by an accredited institution that acknowledges he completed a thorough course of study to the satisfaction of the academic community's standards?

I find that usually kills such nonsensical claims pretty quickly.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-08, 12:43 AM
Just curious, does this guy happen to have an unhealthy obsession with katanas and/or say "basically" a lot?

jaydubs
2014-12-08, 01:46 AM
*By the way, he has also insisted that the advantage / disadvantage system in 5E is equivalent to a +1 bonus for as long as I have known him, and claims to have proved it with a computer simulation. So that shows you the level of math understanding he is working with here.

You know, I would have asked him to put his money where his mouth is.

"Advantage is equal to a +1? Okay. You can roll d20+2, and I'll roll with advantage. That should be in your favor, right? Whoever rolls higher, gets a dollar from the other person.

We're going to keep doing this until you admit you're wrong or I have enough extra cash to order everyone pizza."

Sidmen
2014-12-08, 02:05 AM
You know, I would have asked him to put his money where his mouth is.

"Advantage is equal to a +1? Okay. You can roll d20+2, and I'll roll with advantage. That should be in your favor, right? Whoever rolls higher, gets a dollar from the other person.

We're going to keep doing this until you admit you're wrong or I have enough extra cash to order everyone pizza."

Then the dice gods punish you for your hubris in thinking they will follow petty human laws of probability.

Talakeal
2014-12-08, 02:44 AM
A PHD in math? Really? Wow.

Did you ask him to present the diploma? You know, the document presented by an accredited institution that acknowledges he completed a thorough course of study to the satisfaction of the academic community's standards?

I find that usually kills such nonsensical claims pretty quickly.

As I said, I have no proof of it, but I suspect this guy is a compulsive liar. Also, I stopped even trying to "prove him wrong" weeks ago, as even if you do show him hard evidence that you are correct he continues to tell you that you and your source are both still wrong.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-08, 03:08 AM
As I said, I have no proof of it, but I suspect this guy is a compulsive liar. Also, I stopped even trying to "prove him wrong" weeks ago, as even if you do show him hard evidence that you are correct he continues to tell you that you and your source are both still wrong.

Yeah you do. A PHD in math isn't a thing. You can get PHD's in several branches of mathematics but not in general mathematics, if I'm not mistaken. He can claim that it's in a specific branch but if that branch isn't probability and statistics then it's irrelevant since that's the only advanced math applicable to most RPG's.

Him thinking that all math is the same because it all involves numbers is like saying that baseball and basketball are the same because they're both sports involving balls. It's ludicrous even on the surface.

Meh, I just find it utterly absurd that anyone could make such claims in all seriousness and not expect you to think they're either mentally deficient or disturbed.

Valefor Rathan
2014-12-08, 08:08 AM
well, my specific problem has been "resolved".

I quit the game, perhaps permanently. /snip

::brohug::

Lord Torath
2014-12-08, 08:51 AM
I'm sorry it went down like that, but I'm really glad you got out of his game.

Regarding your other game, I'd contact your friends at that game and let them know what happened. That way they'll at least have your story first.

Best wishes, and I hope things go well in your other games. :smallsmile:

SiuiS
2014-12-08, 11:45 AM
Email the other DM. If you're worried he's going to bad mouth you, say so.


In what ways, specifically, is an RPG unlike collaborative storytelling? In which ways, specifically, do the PCs in an RPG differ from protagonists in a collaboratively-told story?

An RP has a G in it, which makes it a game and removes some of the elegance of storytelling for the fun of gambling. There are many facets of the game where good storytelling conflicts with good gaming. It is fun to run spreadsheets to determine the logistics of moving your army. It is not fun to read or write about extensive logistical concerns. It is fun to figure out an elegant rules solution. It is not fun to write about an elegant rules solution.

That campaign logs need doctoring before they become novels is all the proof we need that there is sufficient difference to be concerned with.


Then the dice gods punish you for your hubris in thinking they will follow petty human laws of probability.

Legit.

Alberic Strein
2014-12-08, 01:25 PM
Well, my specific problem has been "resolved".

I quit the game, perhaps permanently.
As I say to my friends who leave their psycho girlfriends, my condeleances and congratulations!



Finally when the game started he made the statement that when rolling a single dice you modifier is irrelevant, as there is no probability curve when rolling a single dice, and you are just as likely to fail if you need to roll a 2+ as a 20+.
I am going to sound like the worst retard in the world, but for half a second, looking at things broadly enough and squinting very hard, this actually made sense to me.

Basically (yeah I love that word Sith =P) you can fail or succeed at one task, and since you haven't done either yet, both are valid. It can be one of the two. 1/2 = 50%, perfect logic! Besides the fact that it operates on a fallacy so basic I'm going to sound even more stupide for pointing it out, but there is no "two futures" but "20 (relevant) futures" and static bonuses decide whether the middle futures are successes or failures.

Also, while there is no curve to a single dice roll (gambler fallacy, yada yada) there is one in multiple dice rolls and in a game, you want to succeed as much as possible, making his stance even more ridiculous (if possible)[/QUOTE]

About his possible (heck, let's call it inevitable) slander of you, try to be as mature and calm about it than possible. Preemptive strikes work well, like mailing the DM about your fight and explaining that you don't want to create tensions but genuinely enjoy gaming with them and yada yada, be polite, be decisive about not wanting to be cast out, and be neither overly friendly nor aggressive (nor passive). Play in nuances.


An RP has a G in it, which makes it a game and removes some of the elegance of storytelling for the fun of gambling. There are many facets of the game where good storytelling conflicts with good gaming. It is fun to run spreadsheets to determine the logistics of moving your army. It is not fun to read or write about extensive logistical concerns. It is fun to figure out an elegant rules solution. It is not fun to write about an elegant rules solution.

That campaign logs need doctoring before they become novels is all the proof we need that there is sufficient difference to be concerned with.

True dat.

I do believe however that you would have more issues finding concepts which have nothing to do with each other than the opposite.

While games and litteratures have notable differences, which you pointed out well, they also have common grounds, and I believe that difficulty is one of them.

My best gaming moments involve my characters beating, torturing, eventually killing a mage and then imprisoning his soul in a well of souls, the "small" version of HELL ON EARTH for leading an attack which killed the newborn son of one my characters (me having spent an UNGODLY amount of time finding a mate my that character, producing the child, did a mini character sheet for him, and raising him for two game-time years and I don't know how long IRL). The roll that decided of the child's death was absolutely random, but it made payback all the more satisfying. Heck, it made it satisfying at all. Without that it would have only been one more encounter, one more mid-boss, one more non-descript challenge to overcome.

I experience a thrill when my characters are in danger, faced with impossible odds and facing certain doom. I feel the same way (though weaker of course) when characters in a book are in a terrible situation and I wolf down pages to see what happens next.

All of the 8 rules don't apply to gaming, but being a sadist does, in my book. Dropping a Shedim Master on your SR4 players when they are exhausted count as making them suffer, in my book, and it makes their turnaround victory and subsequent throwing their arms in the air screaming in cathartic joy all the more awesome. And to me that makes it good gaming.

SiuiS
2014-12-08, 04:28 PM
The thing is that in a game the player is complicit in the character's sorrow. It should never be an excuse to upset the player for your own ends regardless of anyone else's desires. If you're falling back on a reason to do something others say is bad and relying on the nebulous authority of the group consensus is terrible. Deferring responsibility for your actions to something like that is a bad sign.

Amphetryon
2014-12-08, 04:42 PM
Email the other DM. If you're worried he's going to bad mouth you, say so.



An RP has a G in it, which makes it a game and removes some of the elegance of storytelling for the fun of gambling. There are many facets of the game where good storytelling conflicts with good gaming. It is fun to run spreadsheets to determine the logistics of moving your army. It is not fun to read or write about extensive logistical concerns. It is fun to figure out an elegant rules solution. It is not fun to write about an elegant rules solution.

That campaign logs need doctoring before they become novels is all the proof we need that there is sufficient difference to be concerned with.



Legit.Which of your RPG experiences have progressed satisfactorily when the characters faced no challenges, endured no hardships, had no difficulties in achieving their desired goals, or otherwise did not suffer?

Alberic Strein
2014-12-08, 05:11 PM
Which of your RPG experiences have progressed satisfactorily when the characters faced no challenges, endured no hardships, had no difficulties in achieving their desired goals, or otherwise did not suffer?

While my previous points still hold, I had some... Weird experiences with that.

Well, of course, I have never seen a campaign ruined because no challenge was provided. I DID see campaign ruined because challenge (even a tiny little bit) or otherwise peripeties were provided.

I also saw players take a campaign into their own hands, grieve after random (okay, not random) npc deaths, turning them into a major plot point, and turn the campaign into a Dallas-like love decahodeon culminating in a spouse switch by two sisters.

More than challenges, the players tried to make sense of the world they lived in, tried to unveil a not-ancient conspiracy, traveled the world, found weird plot points and stories and spent most sessions laughing their arses off to random jokes like a fireball trap that leaves a smoked fish aftersmell.

I had a terrible time trying to come up with interesting challenging encounters due to the system, and in the end they had such a reserve of hero points that they could just force their way through encounters. Which was also their strategy regarding social encounters. I don't think they have used diplomacy in the entire last year.

So, to answer your query, one campaign.

edit: An important distinction. It's not that they weren't hurt or didn't ever encounter opposition, it's just that they plowed through opposition and decided to be hurt by certain things, not by things I had created to hurt them. A few years back I had created an NPC whose sole reason to exist was to die heroically. He did. I STILL hear my players b*tch about his death. He wasn't even terribly relevant and his death wasn't even supposed to be a tearjerker. It shapes the behaviours of at least one player in this campaign to this day.

Likewise, they had families, children, went adventuring, got stranded, didn't find a way back for two years, and roleplayed their character's despair at being estranged from their newborn children.

Long story short, I didn't design the pathos and slap their characters with it, they took a bundle of hooks, plot points, stories, etc, and crafted the pathos by themselves.

The Glyphstone
2014-12-08, 05:15 PM
Because you're posting from Bizarro World through some sort of dimensional internet vortex into a world where this sort of twisted psycho-DMing is not the default standard.

Squark
2014-12-08, 05:27 PM
Which of your RPG experiences have progressed satisfactorily when the characters faced no challenges, endured no hardships, had no difficulties in achieving their desired goals, or otherwise did not suffer?

There's a big difference between what you've just said, and the DMs who treat any person in your backstory you don't kill off as cannon fodder to be maimed and/or killed as brutaly as possible.

Raimun
2014-12-08, 05:55 PM
Gah, people who demand "roleplaying" are the worst. Only they get to define what exactly is "roleplaying" and it sure isn't what everyone else is doing. They also feel they should have the right to alter the rules on the spot... and they often make the worst rulings ever.

At least, those seem to be always the common themes whenever I read "roleplayer horror stories".

Edit: Oh, I forgot. You were banned the use of books and character sheets during character creation? That's nuts. Is New Mexico somewhere in Soviet Russia? "In Soviet Russia New Mexico you don't fill the character sheet. The character sheet fills you!"?

Sith_Happens
2014-12-08, 06:18 PM
Which of your RPG experiences have progressed satisfactorily when the characters faced no challenges, endured no hardships, had no difficulties in achieving their desired goals, or otherwise did not suffer?

Between two campaigns I'm currently playing in I can recall at most three "challenges" where a relatively clean victory didn't seem like a foregone conclusion (at least to me), and there most certainly haven't been any major tragedies in either, yet the whole group is still having a blast. Why? Because things have been sunshine and rainbows despite the DMs maintaining what at least seem on the surface to be reasonable difficulty and drama levels.

When the dice are consistently stacked in the protagonists' favor in a story it's generally due to poor writing. When the dice are consistently stacked in the protagonists' favor in an RPG it's generally (or at least hopefully) because the players made it so,* and it usually feels damn good.

* There is a line to tread here; if the players are so soundly blowing through everything that they no longer feel like they have to be trying to do so, then the game should be harder.

jaydubs
2014-12-08, 06:24 PM
There's a big difference between "the DM should make the characters suffer" and "the DM should challenge the characters."

In the first, suffering is a stated goal rather than a possible outcome. Bad things will happen to the characters and the NPCs they care about, because the DM wills it.

In the second, suffering is a distinct possibility, but not guaranteed. The DM presents a challenge, but a combination of player decisions and luck decide the outcome. And if they make poor decisions, or get really unlucky, bad things can happen to the characters just like with a sadistic DM. But if they're clever, and the dice gods smile on them, they might even achieve entirely positive outcomes. And if that happens, the DM says "good job, you really handled that well" rather than "I have to throw more stuff at you, because if you aren't suffering I'm doing my job wrong."

Thinking back from campaigns I've played, the effect of the two types of suffering also stand in sharp contrast. When the tragedy is something the players honestly had a chance at preventing, but failed for whatever reason, the emotion tends to be more real. Guilt, anger, a desire for vengeance, sorrow, etc. actually come into play.

When bad things happen from the DM deciding "because drama," especially when the players have no chance to respond or prevent said things, it's more likely to garner apathy or irritation towards the GM himself, rather than anger directed at campaign villains. It's why auto-capture, cutscening, "no save, this terrible thing just happens to your character" are almost universally reviled.

Doug Lampert
2014-12-08, 06:50 PM
Yeah you do. A PHD in math isn't a thing. You can get PHD's in several branches of mathematics but not in general mathematics, if I'm not mistaken.

There are any number of people with diplomas that claim they have a Ph.D. in mathematics. Their dissertation will have been on a particular thing, and in a few cases this will change the words on the diploma, but if it's a Ph.D. and awarded by the department of mathematics then it's likely to claim to be in mathematics without going into detail.

Also, I occasionally say I have a Ph.D. in math even though my actual diploma DOES say it's in Applied Mathematics, the distinction is relatively minor and in my case simply means there was a physics professor on my committee and that I also had a bunch of graduate level physics courses as well as mathematics courses.

And note that the diploma says Applied Mathematics, not Graph Theory or Computational Complexity, or math with some physics. (Long story, my actual research didn't involve the physics work, but I already had all those graduate level physics courses....)

And typically for a graduate degree you're required to do some "core" coursework, so a math masters or Ph.D. will probably involve at least one or two graduate level courses in each of Linear Algebra, Abstract Algebra, Real Analysis, Complex Analysis, Probability, and Numerical Methods.

Anyone with an ACTUAL math Ph.D. should have at least a little knowledge of probability and statistics. Probably less than what you'd get from an undergrad level Stats degree, but some.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-08, 07:01 PM
Anyone with an ACTUAL math Ph.D. should have at least a little knowledge of probability and statistics.

Like the difference between a probability distribution and a cumulative distribution, which are the two things that Talakeal's now-ex-DM somehow managed to conflate.

Squark
2014-12-08, 07:18 PM
There's a big difference between "the DM should make the characters suffer" and "the DM should challenge the characters."

In the first, suffering is a stated goal rather than a possible outcome. Bad things will happen to the characters and the NPCs they care about, because the DM wills it.

In the second, suffering is a distinct possibility, but not guaranteed. The DM presents a challenge, but a combination of player decisions and luck decide the outcome. And if they make poor decisions, or get really unlucky, bad things can happen to the characters just like with a sadistic DM. But if they're clever, and the dice gods smile on them, they might even achieve entirely positive outcomes. And if that happens, the DM says "good job, you really handled that well" rather than "I have to throw more stuff at you, because if you aren't suffering I'm doing my job wrong."

Thinking back from campaigns I've played, the effect of the two types of suffering also stand in sharp contrast. When the tragedy is something the players honestly had a chance at preventing, but failed for whatever reason, the emotion tends to be more real. Guilt, anger, a desire for vengeance, sorrow, etc. actually come into play.

When bad things happen from the DM deciding "because drama," especially when the players have no chance to respond or prevent said things, it's more likely to garner apathy or irritation towards the GM himself, rather than anger directed at campaign villains. It's why auto-capture, cutscening, "no save, this terrible thing just happens to your character" are almost universally reviled.

I think this sas what I was trying to say much more clearly. To elaborate further, most RPGs are about empowerment. There's more to it than that, of course, but that's the gist of it. Now, empowerment doesn't mean, "I win. Period," but it does entail the players' choices having meaning, and keeping success a possibility. This rules out a lot of traditional tools of tragedy and drama, because a lot of those deal with disempowerment. And I'm not saying you can't use themes of disempowerment in a game, but they have to be used very carefully, AND the audience (the players) need to be on board with it.

Actually, making sure the GM and players want the same thing (or at least, can all get what they want out of the same game) is like the first thing that a group should do, because when expectations are violated, people get uncomfortable and go on the defensive, and RPGS don't work when that happens.

Solaris
2014-12-08, 08:10 PM
Which of your RPG experiences have progressed satisfactorily when the characters faced no challenges, endured no hardships, had no difficulties in achieving their desired goals, or otherwise did not suffer?

I'd like an explanation on how you derived this from "Don't make the characters suffer".

After all, the characters do not exist. Everything in the game, as we all well know, is entirely a construct of our collective imaginations. You can't make the character suffer as the DM. At most, all you can do is make the player suffer. At best, you're creating conditions where the character can suffer - but that's to be done judiciously, preferably with the agreement of the player. If the player's not agreeing to your making his character suffer by messing with his character's background, you're just jerking him around and forcing him to play the kind of game you want to play.

Raine_Sage
2014-12-08, 08:34 PM
Which of your RPG experiences have progressed satisfactorily when the characters faced no challenges, endured no hardships, had no difficulties in achieving their desired goals, or otherwise did not suffer?

Quite a few. But as people have pointed out already, if your group is good they'll fling themselves at pathos inducing plot hooks like lemmings off a cliff without the DM having to do much at all. I've had a guy volunteer to have his character kidnapped and tortured for roughly three games while he played a friendly NPC in the meantime. Another wrote an assassin brother into her back story and highlighted the fact that they did not get along.

Both of those things are different from me just declaring out of the blue "Oh and by the way your entire family died while you were off adventuring, act sad about it now." Which is just the GM dictating how the character should feel without really considering player input (actually I hated my family, they were terrible, let me go dance on their graves).

On Topic: Yeah you did the right thing heading off the other guy by sending an email to the GM. If the good GM is nice and not a jerk (and if the other guys personality flaws are that glaringly awful) they should understand. If they side with the other guy well, that's just unfortunate I guess. I definitely understand what it's like to have your word against someone else's when you're the outsider.

Talakeal
2014-12-08, 09:07 PM
So, I am trying to see the argument from his side and try and figure out where he was coming from.

Is there any way to look at it that needing a 17+ on a d20 is not a 20% chance of success or needing a 6+ is not a 75% chance of success?

I am really wracking my brain trying to figure out what he was trying to say, and I really cant think of anything*.


*I mean a mathematical argument. I dont think he was talking about stuff like DM cheating, unbalanced dice, or a philosopjical appeal to a deterministic universe in which nothing is random, etc.

Solaris
2014-12-08, 09:13 PM
So, I am trying to see the argument from his side and try and figure out where he was coming from.

Is there any way to look at it that needing a 17+ on a d20 is not a 20% chance of success or needing a 6+ is not a 75% chance of success?

I am really wracking my brain trying to figure out what he was trying to say, and I really cant think of anything*.


*I mean a mathematical argument. I dont think he was talking about stuff like DM cheating, unbalanced dice, or a philosopjical appeal to a deterministic universe in which nothing is random, etc.

What he was trying to say was "I don't understand basic probabilities and haven't the faintest clue what I'm talking about."
I wouldn't worry about it too much. He was simply wrong. When you add a bonus onto a die, you change the probabilities of its rolls. Only an unmodified die has a (theoretical) equal chance of any possible result.

Alberic Strein
2014-12-09, 11:55 AM
So, I am trying to see the argument from his side and try and figure out where he was coming from.

Is there any way to look at it that needing a 17+ on a d20 is not a 20% chance of success or needing a 6+ is not a 75% chance of success?

I am really wracking my brain trying to figure out what he was trying to say, and I really cant think of anything*.


*I mean a mathematical argument. I dont think he was talking about stuff like DM cheating, unbalanced dice, or a philosopjical appeal to a deterministic universe in which nothing is random, etc.


Basically (yeah I love that word Sith =P) you can fail or succeed at one task, and since you haven't done either yet, both are valid. It can be one of the two. 1/2 = 50%, perfect logic!

Or something of the sort. This doesn't encompass a deterministic vision of the universe in my opinion.

edit: And since I love both digging my own grave and sounding retarded, let me elaborate:


Let's pretend I understand the Schrödinger's cat story for a second. Since the cat might be dead or alive, it counts as both. It still counts as both even if it has 90% odds of dying. It doesn't count as 90% dead, but still as dead and alive. So the probabilities are irrelevant.

You can apply that fallacy to players. No matter how high, the player's bonus won't invalidate his odds of failure. You can still fail with a +15 bonus and succeed with a mere +5 bonus. When throwing the dice, the dice is the only arbiter, the only decisive factor determining success or failure, thanks to critical successes and failures. In this light one could say that bonuses are irrelevant. Even with a +20 bonus you can still fail by rolling a 1, and in this instance, your bonus is actually irrelevant. Likewise, there are so many dice thrown at every single moment and so many instances of probabilities being seen and recorded that they justify even the worst luck ever. You can play D&D for years and roll a 1 every time you needed to roll high and roll a 20 every time you needed to roll low. Even without loaded dice. Because even though it's a probability of infinity-1 of happening, since there are infinity-1 dice being cast, it is 'justified' in happening, by virtue of being the outlying (outriding? something sounding like that) probability of all those dice rolls.

In front of such absolute 'random' your puny +15 or +5 modifyers is litterally next to nothing. The only thing that counts is whether or not the dice, the Random Number God will favor you or not. This, and the GM's rule 0 shape successes and failures, and the world you interact with itself. Not irrelevant +1 Munchkinery.

Or some B-S of such nature.

SiuiS
2014-12-09, 12:29 PM
Which of your RPG experiences have progressed satisfactorily when the characters faced no challenges, endured no hardships, had no difficulties in achieving their desired goals, or otherwise did not suffer?

I'll lay ball if you put the goalposts back.

Riposte: which of your RPG experiences have progressed satisfactorily with absolutely no player input on challenges, hardships, and difficulties? Which have progressed satisfactorily without player input on goals?

My stance has always been that players make their own misery, and that it is not the DMs job to make the players suffer, it is his job to present opportunities for the players to make their characters suffer. If you, as DM, push so hard that the players stop having fun, you're a failure. An abject failure. You've conflated correlation with causation, accepted the heuristic as deeply factual, and begun to undermine yourself and blame the players in a positive feedback loop that's readily reduces your qualifications for running a game.



Long story short, I didn't design the pathos and slap their characters with it, they took a bundle of hooks, plot points, stories, etc, and crafted the pathos by themselves.

*nod*


I'd like an explanation on how you derived this from "Don't make the characters suffer".

After all, the characters do not exist. Everything in the game, as we all well know, is entirely a construct of our collective imaginations. You can't make the character suffer as the DM. At most, all you can do is make the player suffer. At best, you're creating conditions where the character can suffer - but that's to be done judiciously, preferably with the agreement of the player. If the player's not agreeing to your making his character suffer by messing with his character's background, you're just jerking him around and forcing him to play the kind of game you want to play.

Yup.

1337 b4k4
2014-12-09, 12:40 PM
What he was trying to say was "I don't understand basic probabilities and haven't the faintest clue what I'm talking about."
I wouldn't worry about it too much. He was simply wrong. When you add a bonus onto a die, you change the probabilities of its rolls. Only an unmodified die has a (theoretical) equal chance of any possible result.

This isn't strictly true. A static modifier applied to a single die roll changes the range of the results, but not the probability of any given result within that range. That is to say the probability of rolling a 20 on a single d20 is the same if your modifier is +0, +1, +5 or +10 or even +19. However, since success in D&D is a "pass the threshold" result rather than a "get this exact number" result, a (positive) modifier does increase your chances of success by increasing the range above the threshold, and decreasing the range below it, while keeping the probability of any given value the same.

Solaris
2014-12-09, 02:32 PM
This isn't strictly true. A static modifier applied to a single die roll changes the range of the results, but not the probability of any given result within that range. That is to say the probability of rolling a 20 on a single d20 is the same if your modifier is +0, +1, +5 or +10 or even +19. However, since success in D&D is a "pass the threshold" result rather than a "get this exact number" result, a (positive) modifier does increase your chances of success by increasing the range above the threshold, and decreasing the range below it, while keeping the probability of any given value the same.

Yeah, I got sloppy with my language. My bad on that; I said roll when I meant results - whether it be a pass or a fail.
Good catch.

Talakeal
2014-12-09, 02:37 PM
What he was trying to say was "I don't understand basic probabilities and haven't the faintest clue what I'm talking about."
I wouldn't worry about it too much. He was simply wrong. When you add a bonus onto a die, you change the probabilities of its rolls. Only an unmodified die has a (theoretical) equal chance of any possible result.

Ok good. I don't think it likely, but I was afraid this was some variant of the Monty Haul door puzzle that seems counter intuitive but actually has a different answer than most people would give, and I was just making myself look like a stubborn buffoon by denying it so vigorously.

Knaight
2014-12-09, 03:26 PM
Ok good. I don't think it likely, but I was afraid this was some variant of the Monty Haul door puzzle that seems counter intuitive but actually has a different answer than most people would give, and I was just making myself look like a stubborn buffoon by denying it so vigorously.
It's more like someone trying to cite the Mony Haul puzzle to say that if you flip a coin and it lands on tails, it is now more likely to land on heads next time.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-09, 10:17 PM
(Forgot to include the below in my last post:)


Basically (yeah I love that word Sith =P)

Trust me, you wouldn't like it if it were in dark orchid.

...

"Basically."

*shudders*

Solaris
2014-12-09, 10:43 PM
Trust me, you wouldn't like it if it were in dark orchid.

...

"Basically."

*shudders*

Reading that thread has inspired me to dust off my CthulhuTech books and actually figure out how to play the game so I can inflict a katana-wielding eldritch abomination on my fiancee's characters.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-09, 10:44 PM
Reading that thread has inspired me to dust off my CthulhuTech books and actually figure out how to play the game so I can inflict a katana-wielding eldritch abomination on my fiancee's characters.

I would post the "That's the evilest thing I can imagine" meme, but this is legitimately evil.

Solaris
2014-12-10, 07:39 PM
I would post the "That's the evilest thing I can imagine" meme, but this is legitimately evil.

She knew what she was getting into when she picked me out. It's her fault for neglecting to use detect evil on the first date.
Not that it would've done much good, being as I was wearing my boxer shorts of undetectable alignment, but, y'know...

SiuiS
2014-12-14, 03:22 AM
Ok good. I don't think it likely, but I was afraid this was some variant of the Monty Haul door puzzle that seems counter intuitive but actually has a different answer than most people would give, and I was just making myself look like a stubborn buffoon by denying it so vigorously.

Monty haul door puzzle? Wha?

Knaight
2014-12-14, 03:42 AM
Monty haul door puzzle? Wha?

There are three doors. Behind one of them is something wanted (traditionally a car), behind the other two is something not wanted (traditionally a goat). You pick one door. Another door you haven't picked that does not contain the thing wanted is opened. You can then choose to switch to a different door or not, and get the thing behind the door chosen at the end (which might be the original door.

The odds of getting the wanted item are higher if you switch, which is really counter intuitive for a lot of people, as the odds are obviously it being 1/3 per door. What fixes the discrepancy is that switching gets the object if it was behind either of the door not originally picked, because you are guaranteed to pick correctly within that set if the wanted object is in that set.

Sartharina
2014-12-14, 09:00 AM
The odds of getting the wanted item are higher if you switch, which is really counter intuitive for a lot of people, as the odds are obviously it being 1/3 per door. What fixes the discrepancy is that switching gets the object if it was behind either of the door not originally picked, because you are guaranteed to pick correctly within that set if the wanted object is in that set.

Actually, you misunderstand it as well. It's never guaranteed.

The thing is - choosing the first door has a 33% chance of getting you the item. Choosing the second door gives you a 50% chance of getting the item. It's easier to visualize if you have 100 or more doors, and they open all but one other door.

daemonaetea
2014-12-14, 10:25 AM
So, the "advantage is basically +1" thing. Not that it will matter to the DM, but just because it took me literally 30 seconds to prove...

http://anydice.com/program/4e33

Average roll of Advantage: 13.8
Average roll of d20+1: 11.5

The only advantage that d20+1 has is that you're ever so slightly (like a quarter of a percent) more likely to get at least a 20. In every other capacity the Advantage roll is superior. The "At Least" view is I think usually the most enlightening display for RPG purposes. On another note, I love that site. It makes it very simple to get a feel for the math of different systems, and how they work out.

Mr Beer
2014-12-14, 04:05 PM
Actually, you misunderstand it as well. It's never guaranteed.

The thing is - choosing the first door has a 33% chance of getting you the item. Choosing the second door gives you a 50% chance of getting the item. It's easier to visualize if you have 100 or more doors, and they open all but one other door.

I wasn't aware of this Monty Hall problem until they ran it on Mythbusters, I was (loudly) sure at the start of the trial that switching doors couldn't possibly increase your odds of picking the prize. Even now it's something I have to think though again in order to understand because it seems crazy on the face of it that changing your choice from door x to door y increases your chances of being correct.

The '100 doors' thing does help.

Susano-wo
2014-12-14, 06:45 PM
alright then, you guys are going to have to math me. (or inform me of a circumstance I am unaware of)
You pick 1 out of 1,2, or 3. Your chance is 33% They open door 3. Prize is not there. You have a choice: door 1 or 2. Either is 50%. The probability is not different at this point, whether you pick door 1 or door 2. 50% either way.

There is no way, barring some other data that I might be unaware of, that the probability changes if you do not "change" choices

Mr Beer
2014-12-14, 06:59 PM
You pick a door, 33% it's the right choice. Dealer shows you a different door which is the wrong choice. If you decide to switch to the third door (which you didn't pick and dealer didn't show), you have a 50% chance of being right. So you improve your chances by switching doors.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-12-14, 07:02 PM
You pick a door, 33% it's the right choice. Dealer shows you a different door which is the wrong choice. If you decide to switch to the third door (which you didn't pick and dealer didn't show), you have a 50% chance of being right. So you improve your chances by switching doors.

But... on the second choice, don't you also have a 50% chance of having the right door if you don't switch?

Susano-wo
2014-12-14, 07:13 PM
But... on the second choice, don't you also have a 50% chance of having the right door if you don't switch?

exactly. you are re-evaluating the situation based on new data. That's why I quoted "changing." You are not changing or keeping, but making a new choice between the remaining 2 doors.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-14, 09:15 PM
alright then, you guys are going to have to math me. (or inform me of a circumstance I am unaware of)
You pick 1 out of 1,2, or 3. Your chance is 33% They open door 3. Prize is not there. You have a choice: door 1 or 2. Either is 50%. The probability is not different at this point, whether you pick door 1 or door 2. 50% either way.

There is no way, barring some other data that I might be unaware of, that the probability changes if you do not "change" choices

The trick is to chart all the ways the situation can play out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Simple_solutions).

jaydubs
2014-12-14, 09:18 PM
Think about the Monty Haul problem this way. What are your odds of picking the prize door using each of the methods? Consider the entire process from start to finish, rather than the individual choices.

If you stick with the door you pick at the beginning, you only get it right if you pick the prize door immediately. Your chance of picking the prize door out of 3, is 1/3.

If you switch doors, you end up with the prize door whenever you don't pick the prize door at first. If you start with the prize door, you'll switch to a false door. If you start with a false door, the second false door gets eliminated, and you end up on the prize door. So your chance of ending up on the prize door is equal to your chance of initially picking a false door - i.e., 2/3.

Sartharina
2014-12-14, 10:01 PM
But... on the second choice, don't you also have a 50% chance of having the right door if you don't switch?No. You still have the original 33% chance, because your initial decision is unchanged.

Again - replace three doors with 1,000,000,000 doors, and the dealer opens all but one of them.

Knaight
2014-12-15, 05:34 AM
Actually, you misunderstand it as well. It's never guaranteed.

The thing is - choosing the first door has a 33% chance of getting you the item. Choosing the second door gives you a 50% chance of getting the item. It's easier to visualize if you have 100 or more doors, and they open all but one other door.

I said "you are guaranteed to pick correctly within that set if the wanted object is in that set*". If it's within the door you picked the first time, then switching obviously doesn't produce it. Moreover, that 50% chance is incorrect, the chances are 1/3 and 2/3 between the first door and the second door (representing both of the other two doors). At no point did I, or anyone else, claim that there was any way that one was guaranteed to get the wanted object if it was anywhere in the initial problem space. Though I will say that the odds of getting it asymptotically approach 1 as the number of doors approach infinity.

*Another way to put this would be that if you switch you won't accidentally pick one of the doors that you already know to be wrong.

goto124
2014-12-15, 09:05 AM
I've been in situations where players essentially say 'Bow before me, for I am High Lord of Something, and kiss my feet. Else you suffer', and keep true to their promise. It is realistic, but...

Has any one encountered this kind of DM?

Jay R
2014-12-15, 12:33 PM
alright then, you guys are going to have to math me. (or inform me of a circumstance I am unaware of)
You pick 1 out of 1,2, or 3. Your chance is 33% They open door 3. Prize is not there. You have a choice: door 1 or 2. Either is 50%. The probability is not different at this point, whether you pick door 1 or door 2. 50% either way.

There is no way, barring some other data that I might be unaware of, that the probability changes if you do not "change" choices

The data you are unaware of is given to you by the rule which states that Monty will always open a door after you first choose, and that door will never be the one with the prize. Therefore Monty gave you some information based on the fact that he knows where the prize is. You can exploit that fact.

Specifically, if you chose wrong originally (2/3 probability), Monty will show you the second wrong choice. That leaves only the right choice, if you switch.

Assume you originally choose door A. One of three scenarios plays out, with equal probability.
1. The prize is behind door A. Monty opens either B or C (it doesn't matter). If you switch, you lose.
2. The prize is behind door B. Monty is required by the rules to open C. If you switch, you win.
3. The prize is behind door C. Monty is required by the rules to open B. If you switch, you win.

That's two chances out of three to win by switching - because Monty's action gave you new information.

Susano-wo
2014-12-15, 03:57 PM
The data you are unaware of is given to you by the rule which states that Monty will always open a door after you first choose, and that door will never be the one with the prize. Therefore Monty gave you some information based on the fact that he knows where the prize is. You can exploit that fact.

Specifically, if you chose wrong originally (2/3 probability), Monty will show you the second wrong choice. That leaves only the right choice, if you switch.

Assume you originally choose door A. One of three scenarios plays out, with equal probability.
1. The prize is behind door A. Monty opens either B or C (it doesn't matter). If you switch, you lose.
2. The prize is behind door B. Monty is required by the rules to open C. If you switch, you win.
3. The prize is behind door C. Monty is required by the rules to open B. If you switch, you win.

That's two chances out of three to win by switching - because Monty's action gave you new information.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. But its still wrong. :P (I know, I know, it's widely accepted but I am still arguing. sorry >.<)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Monty_open_door_chances.svg/197px-Monty_open_door_chances.svg.png[/url]
The choice is between door number 1 and door number 2. was it unlikely that you picked right initially? yes. does that change the probability that you are choosing between 2 equally possible choices now? no. Each choice is independent.

Its like the difference between what your chances are to roll nat 20 twice in a row, vs your chance on either or 2 rolls. Your chance to roll 20 is always 5%, no matter how many 20s were rolled before that, but the aggregate probability that the overall occurrence could happen is much lower.

In the Hall problem, you have already made the first choice, in which you either conformed to probability (picked wrong door) or did not (picked right door.) that part is done, and now you have a new choice, with a 50 50 chance. The second door is not 2/3, because 3 is no longer really a choice, only 1 and 2 are.
Sorry if I appear belligerent, but I just cant see the logic in the proposed probabilities.

Hiro Protagonest
2014-12-15, 04:00 PM
The data you are unaware of is given to you by the rule which states that Monty will always open a door after you first choose, and that door will never be the one with the prize. Therefore Monty gave you some information based on the fact that he knows where the prize is. You can exploit that fact.

Specifically, if you chose wrong originally (2/3 probability), Monty will show you the second wrong choice. That leaves only the right choice, if you switch.

Assume you originally choose door A. One of three scenarios plays out, with equal probability.
1. The prize is behind door A. Monty opens either B or C (it doesn't matter). If you switch, you lose.
2. The prize is behind door B. Monty is required by the rules to open C. If you switch, you win.
3. The prize is behind door C. Monty is required by the rules to open B. If you switch, you win.

That's two chances out of three to win by switching - because Monty's action gave you new information.

Actually, 1 is 1 and 2, then 2 and 3 are 3 and 4.

1. The prize is behind door A. Monty opens door B. Switch, you lose.
2. The prize is behind door 1. Monty opens door C. Switch, you lose.

BRC
2014-12-15, 04:07 PM
Thank you for the detailed explanation. But its still wrong. :P (I know, I know, it's widely accepted but I am still arguing. sorry >.<)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Monty_open_door_chances.svg/197px-Monty_open_door_chances.svg.png[/url]
The choice is between door number 1 and door number 2. was it unlikely that you picked right initially? yes. does that change the probability that you are choosing between 2 equally possible choices now? no. Each choice is independent.

Its like the difference between what your chances are to roll nat 20 twice in a row, vs your chance on either or 2 rolls. Your chance to roll 20 is always 5%, no matter how many 20s were rolled before that, but the aggregate probability that the overall occurrence could happen is much lower.

In the Hall problem, you have already made the first choice, in which you either conformed to probability (picked wrong door) or did not (picked right door.) that part is done, and now you have a new choice, with a 50 50 chance. The second door is not 2/3, because 3 is no longer really a choice, only 1 and 2 are.
Sorry if I appear belligerent, but I just cant see the logic in the proposed probabilities.

I think Part of it is that Monty always opens
1) A door with a goat
2) A door that you did not choose.

This means that if you didn't pick the right door, Monty does not get to choose which door to open. He only gets to choose which door to open if you picked the door with the car.

So, there is door one, Two, and Three.

You pick door One.

If Door one has the car behind it (1/3rd), Monty gets his choice between opening doors Two or Three.
If Door Three has the car behind it, Monty MUST open Door Two.

So, in the second choice, it makes more sense to switch because there is a 2/3rds chance you were wrong the first time, which means there is a 2/3rds chance that the prize is behind door 3.

You're looking at the probabilities at the wrong time.

The logic goes like this.
Doors A, B, And C, where Door A is always the door that you pick first.
Doors X, Y, and Z. Where X and Y have goats, and Z has the prize.
Monty opens Door M.

Given the following:
M!= A and M !=Z

If A=Z, then M= B or C

Therefore
If A= X, M=Y. Z!=M and Z !=A
If A=Y, M=X, Z!=M And Z!=A
If A=Z, then M= X or Y=B or C

There is a two-thirds chance that you forced Monty to select the only door that was neither A nor Z. Once you're there, you know which door is door Z.

Jay R
2014-12-15, 04:54 PM
Actually, 1 is 1 and 2, then 2 and 3 are 3 and 4.

1. The prize is behind door A. Monty opens door B. Switch, you lose.
2. The prize is behind door 1. Monty opens door C. Switch, you lose.

Those two combined have a probability of one third - the probability that you picked the right door initially. You've split it into four possibilities, but not four possibilities of equal probability.


Thank you for the detailed explanation. But its still wrong. :P (I know, I know, it's widely accepted but I am still arguing. sorry >.<)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Monty_open_door_chances.svg/197px-Monty_open_door_chances.svg.png[/url]
The choice is between door number 1 and door number 2. was it unlikely that you picked right initially? yes. does that change the probability that you are choosing between 2 equally possible choices now? no. Each choice is independent.

Its like the difference between what your chances are to roll nat 20 twice in a row, vs your chance on either or 2 rolls. Your chance to roll 20 is always 5%, no matter how many 20s were rolled before that, but the aggregate probability that the overall occurrence could happen is much lower.

In the Hall problem, you have already made the first choice, in which you either conformed to probability (picked wrong door) or did not (picked right door.) that part is done, and now you have a new choice, with a 50 50 chance. The second door is not 2/3, because 3 is no longer really a choice, only 1 and 2 are.
Sorry if I appear belligerent, but I just cant see the logic in the proposed probabilities.

You don't appear belligerent - just mistaken.

Consider the following nine cases, all equally likely:

You picked A; prize in A. Either B or C has been opened. Switching is bad.
You picked A; prize in B. C has been opened, switching is good.
You picked A; prize in C. B has been opened, switching is good.
You picked B; prize in A. C has been opened, switching is good.
You picked B; prize in B. Either A or C has been opened, switching is bad.
You picked B; prize in C. A has been opened, switching is good.
You picked C; prize in A. B has been opened, switching is good.
You picked C; prize in B. A has been opened, switching is good.
You picked C; prize in C. Either A or B has been opened, switching is bad.

2/3 chance that switching is good, because if you picked wrong first, you were given new information.

If you won't accept the word of a Statistics instructor, then I suggest that you actually try it. Run 1,000 cases in which you choose randomly, Monty opens a worthless door, and then you switch.

jaydubs
2014-12-15, 04:57 PM
How about this. You've got some kind of pachinko type machine, where a steel ball drops down into one of two funnels. The left funnel is half the size of the right funnel, so the ball is twice as likely to land in the right funnel. The left funnel eventually drops the steel ball into box 1, while the right funnel eventually drops the steel ball into box 2.

So even though there are 2 boxes, and the ball could end up in either, it's more likely to be in box 2.

That's basically the Monty Hall problem, except instead of funnels you have a door elimination process. The door you initially choose is box 1, and the door you haven't chosen (and that Monty hasn't opened) is box 2.

BRC
2014-12-15, 05:04 PM
I think the issue with the Monty Hall problem is how it is normally presented.

"You pick Door A, Monty opens Door B, revealing a goat. Should you switch to Door C?"
Which makes it sound as if you are standing in front of three physical doors labeled A, B, and C from left to right. What is described is not a sequence of events so much as the rules of the game.

There will ALWAYS be a Door A, which you picked, a Door B, which is opened to reveal a goat, and a Door C, which is neither picked nor opened.

Milo v3
2014-12-15, 05:39 PM
I've been in situations where players essentially say 'Bow before me, for I am High Lord of Something, and kiss my feet. Else you suffer', and keep true to their promise. It is realistic, but...

Has any one encountered this kind of DM?

Yeah, I didn't last long in that game though (in-character and out-of-character).

Mr Beer
2014-12-15, 05:44 PM
But... on the second choice, don't you also have a 50% chance of having the right door if you don't switch?

No. You are better off switching doors.

Amphetryon
2014-12-15, 05:56 PM
Between two campaigns I'm currently playing in I can recall at most three "challenges" where a relatively clean victory didn't seem like a foregone conclusion (at least to me), and there most certainly haven't been any major tragedies in either, yet the whole group is still having a blast. Why? Because things have been sunshine and rainbows despite the DMs maintaining what at least seem on the surface to be reasonable difficulty and drama levels.

When the dice are consistently stacked in the protagonists' favor in a story it's generally due to poor writing. When the dice are consistently stacked in the protagonists' favor in an RPG it's generally (or at least hopefully) because the players made it so,* and it usually feels damn good.

* There is a line to tread here; if the players are so soundly blowing through everything that they no longer feel like they have to be trying to do so, then the game should be harder.

If you make the game harder, then you're increasing the amount of suffering - certainly the amount of potential suffering - the characters are undergoing. Given that causing them any suffering is apparently contrary to the point, and those that disagree are
twit[s]. . . so far off base he scored a touchback... and it's not even relevant to RPGs, it matters not if the GM is causing the suffering, or if the players/characters are voluntarily "throwing themselves at pathos." If causing suffering of any sort - and, note there was no nuance given in the quoted statement, so assuming any is putting words in Sartharina's mouth - is not relevant to the game, and doing so makes one a 'twit,' then I'm still genuinely curious as to how one progresses any game of this type without it. Conflict is not viable, because conflict is a type of suffering.

Solaris
2014-12-15, 06:26 PM
If you make the game harder, then you're increasing the amount of suffering - certainly the amount of potential suffering - the characters are undergoing. Given that causing them any suffering is apparently contrary to the point, and those that disagree are , it matters not if the GM is causing the suffering, or if the players/characters are voluntarily "throwing themselves at pathos." If causing suffering of any sort - and, note there was no nuance given in the quoted statement, so assuming any is putting words in Sartharina's mouth - is not relevant to the game, and doing so makes one a 'twit,' then I'm still genuinely curious as to how one progresses any game of this type without it. Conflict is not viable, because conflict is a type of suffering.

You're confusing 'challenge' and 'suffer'. Stop doing that.

A challenge is when you make something hard. Suffering is when you're making something hard on someone.

Jay R
2014-12-15, 07:44 PM
But... on the second choice, don't you also have a 50% chance of having the right door if you don't switch?

No, but until you study conditional probability, and learn Bayes' rule, it will always seem counter-intuitive. (Or take the easy way and try 1,000 trials.)

I just ran 10,000 trials. By always switching, I won 6,592 times. That gives a 95% confidence interval of .6500 - .6685 for the probability of winning with that strategy.

But don't take my word for it. Run the trials yourself. It only took me about twenty minutes in Excel.

comicshorse
2014-12-16, 07:37 AM
Or let James May do the experiment for you (with beer !)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvODuUMLLgM

Nagash
2014-12-16, 07:48 AM
I've been in situations where players essentially say 'Bow before me, for I am High Lord of Something, and kiss my feet. Else you suffer', and keep true to their promise. It is realistic, but...

Has any one encountered this kind of DM?

players like the characters say that to an NPC? If so how does it involve the DM?

Milo v3
2014-12-16, 07:56 AM
players like the characters say that to an NPC? If so how does it involve the DM?

Players (that were effectively DM's for the medium he was in) said it to his character iirc.

goto124
2014-12-16, 08:02 AM
players like the characters say that to an NPC? If so how does it involve the DM?

Players (that were effectively DM's for the medium he was in) said it to his character iirc.

Milo's right. Technically player-to-player, but the effectively-DM players were indeed High Lords/Ladies of Something, and wielded huge power over other characters. The real DM (the person who actually controls the game) had intentionally set things up that way. They would've said the same thing IC and OOC: 'So you don't want to kiss my character's feet? Bugger off to another game'.

comicshorse
2014-12-16, 09:19 AM
At which point you bugger off (or start long term planning for assassinating their characters)
Though was it that bad, I've played in a game where half the P.C.s were ghouls in service to the other P.C.s Vampires and there is all the difference in the world between 'pay respect to my high position' and 'grovel like a worm'.

goto124
2014-12-16, 11:20 AM
At which point you bugger off (or start long term planning for assassinating their characters)

I wonder how that would've worked. Suffice to say that if you hate them, you'll probably get sick of the game long before your character's strong enough to even think about assassinating them.


Though was it that bad, I've played in a game where half the P.C.s were ghouls in service to the other P.C.s Vampires and there is all the difference in the world between 'pay respect to my high position' and 'grovel like a worm'.

It's a blurry line I guess. What is 'pay respect to my high position' to one person is 'grovel like a worm' to another. There's also the thing that it's an imaginary game, not an actual society, so I set the bar for 'grovel like a worm' to be much lower than RL. Especially when dealing with PCs, who are there for the sole purpose of having fun.

That said, how does your game work to solve that problem? Mutual respect between players would be essential, but how would the system encourage such a thing?

comicshorse
2014-12-16, 11:57 AM
I wonder how that would've worked. Suffice to say that if you hate them, you'll probably get sick of the game long before your character's strong enough to even think about assassinating them.


You only need to be as strong as them if you're in a fair fight. Poison their drinks, hire assassins, back stab them in their sleep, etc. That said if the GM is happy with this power disparity any plan is probably going to be made to fail no matter how good it is



It's a blurry line I guess. What is 'pay respect to my high position' to one person is 'grovel like a worm' to another. There's also the thing that it's an imaginary game, not an actual society, so I set the bar for 'grovel like a worm' to be much lower than RL. Especially when dealing with PCs, who are there for the sole purpose of having fun.

That said, how does your game work to solve that problem? Mutual respect between players would be essential, but how would the system encourage such a thing?

Indeed the particular group this occured with have been playing for years and so trust each other not to abuse the position of being in power over the other players. This wasn't a single time we've had this challenge though in lots of games we've had to have a team leader : in Serenity the owner of the ship everybody worked for, in 'Warhammer' the Count that employed the P.C.s as his retinue, etc. The thing is to wield the authority while still respecting the other P.C.s and it can lead to some interesting RP'ing. Again this has to be with players you trust, I've had some storming arguments IC with other players but then still been able to laugh about it after the game is over..
In the Vampire game the system really worked against such a thing as not only are the Vampires much more powerful than the Ghouls but the Blood Bond ensures the Ghouls are emotionally manipulated to care for their master. It raised some interesting RP'ing, particularly as my Ghoul was a huge Mafia thug in a game set in the 50's in service to a bookish, female Vampire.
Fundamentally it isn't something that can be forced, the players must be willing to accept that somebody will be in a position of authority over them for the game to work. If they're not comfortable with it then its time for the GM to rethink the game

goto124
2014-12-16, 01:39 PM
You only need to be as strong as them if you're in a fair fight. Poison their drinks, hire assassins, back stab them in their sleep, etc. That said if the GM is happy with this power disparity any plan is probably going to be made to fail no matter how good it is

The mechanics of the game were... unforgiving. Poison? If you even know how to make a successful poison without killing yourself - you're going to find very little help on 'forbidden skills' like thievery. Hire assassins? Who? Caan you even find an NPC who'll do this sort of thing? Other PCs? Money's useless when you risk losing your hard-earned character. Back stab in their sleep? Good luck getting into their castles, which have real defenses for exactly this reason. Also, how are you going to learn to backstab? Again, forbidden thievery skills means it's the HIGHER-UPs who have them (because no one can stop them, and they're the ones who made the skills 'forbidden' in the first place). They will dodge your attack and then kill you. Which goes back to the 3rd sentence in that quote I guess.

You can wait for the person to go out alone, throw a spell at the person and kill him instantly (funnily enough, viable in game). But then you'll have to hide his soul somewhere, otherwise all his underlings (all exprienced PCs not to be trifled with) will go all out to look for him, and ressurect him. They can find his soul even if it's in the depths of a dangerous dungeon. You could opt to try destroy his soul, since you're going to die anyway. If you can figure out the methods to do this. Good luck.

(What is it called when you hate a game, and love to rant endlessly about it?)


Indeed the particular group this occured with have been playing for years and so trust each other not to abuse the position of being in power over the other players.

*takes notes*


Fundamentally it isn't something that can be forced, the players must be willing to accept that somebody will be in a position of authority over them for the game to work. If they're not comfortable with it then its time for the GM to rethink the game

I guess it also depends on how much power the authority has? This can vary wildly from game to game. Authority may actually mean nothing in one game, and almost completely dictate your IC life in another.

Sartharina
2014-12-16, 01:44 PM
You only need to be as strong as them if you're in a fair fight. Poison their drinks, hire assassins, back stab them in their sleep, etc. That said if the GM is happy with this power disparity any plan is probably going to be made to fail no matter how good it isNobody in a long-running RP likes having a well-established, long-lived character that's built himself up to a position of power over several years get bumped off by some random newbie who decided they don't like the current boss.

comicshorse
2014-12-16, 01:51 PM
Very true but on the other hand if you go around treating people like crap you really have no right to complain if they decide they aren't going to take it. There are lots of way to play well established characters that don't involve having the newbie grovel

SiuiS
2014-12-16, 03:11 PM
There are three doors. Behind one of them is something wanted (traditionally a car), behind the other two is something not wanted (traditionally a goat). You pick one door. Another door you haven't picked that does not contain the thing wanted is opened. You can then choose to switch to a different door or not, and get the thing behind the door chosen at the end (which might be the original door.

The odds of getting the wanted item are higher if you switch, which is really counter intuitive for a lot of people, as the odds are obviously it being 1/3 per door. What fixes the discrepancy is that switching gets the object if it was behind either of the door not originally picked, because you are guaranteed to pick correctly within that set if the wanted object is in that set.

Oh, that. I forgot that's what that was called.


So, the "advantage is basically +1" thing. Not that it will matter to the DM, but just because it took me literally 30 seconds to prove...

http://anydice.com/program/4e33

Average roll of Advantage: 13.8
Average roll of d20+1: 11.5

The only advantage that d20+1 has is that you're ever so slightly (like a quarter of a percent) more likely to get at least a 20. In every other capacity the Advantage roll is superior. The "At Least" view is I think usually the most enlightening display for RPG purposes. On another note, I love that site. It makes it very simple to get a feel for the math of different systems, and how they work out.

Advantage is worth more the easier a task is. If the DC is 10, advantage is worth a +5.


alright then, you guys are going to have to math me. (or inform me of a circumstance I am unaware of)
You pick 1 out of 1,2, or 3. Your chance is 33% They open door 3. Prize is not there. You have a choice: door 1 or 2. Either is 50%. The probability is not different at this point, whether you pick door 1 or door 2. 50% either way.

There is no way, barring some other data that I might be unaware of, that the probability changes if you do not "change" choices

You have a 1 in 3 chance of picking right the first time. You have a 1 in 2 chance of picking right the second time.

Consider that you choose both times. Deciding not to change doors is picking the same door again. Reframing the problem this way eliminates the weirdness of "what if the first door was right?" Because you would still be actively choosing this first door out of a set of two.


I've been in situations where players essentially say 'Bow before me, for I am High Lord of Something, and kiss my feet. Else you suffer', and keep true to their promise. It is realistic, but...

Has any one encountered this kind of DM?

Yes. Because sometimes being an uppity pissant isn't the best decision. The balrog king of the five fires of damnation says bow or die, and you don't choose now, you can't really gripe when he kills you.

That said, it's not always done well. I've had a DM do this out of the blue to try and discipline the players. Bad move.

Sartharina
2014-12-16, 04:02 PM
You have a 1 in 3 chance of picking right the first time. You have a 1 in 2 chance of picking right the second time.

Consider that you choose both times. Deciding not to change doors is picking the same door again. Reframing the problem this way eliminates the weirdness of "what if the first door was right?" Because you would still be actively choosing this first door out of a set of two.No. It's a 2-in-3 chance the second time (As evidenced by every single mathematical test of the situation). Again - replace it with a million doors, and have the guy open 999,998 of them, leaving just the one you selected, and either the one with the item, or a random one if you managed to get the item on your guess - Again, your odds of selecting the right one in the original situation are a million-to-one here. Not switching leaves your odds of getting it as a million-to-one. There is a one-in-a-million chance of failing if you switch. The prize doesn't get 'reshuffled' after the doors are open, so the odds of you picking right the first time never change.

In the case of "What if the first door was right?" - You managed to choose correctly in a one-in-a-third chance in the original, or one-in-a-million in the better-defined.


So... if you're in a movie, book, or webcomic, DON'T SWITCH. Otherwise, switch away!

Nagash
2014-12-16, 05:05 PM
Milo's right. Technically player-to-player, but the effectively-DM players were indeed High Lords/Ladies of Something, and wielded huge power over other characters. The real DM (the person who actually controls the game) had intentionally set things up that way. They would've said the same thing IC and OOC: 'So you don't want to kiss my character's feet? Bugger off to another game'.

eww, awful game setup. I can see how it could seem interesting to a GM but way, way to open to abuse.

I'd probably OOC talk to the player in question about not being a jerk but if that didnt work I'd leave the game.

Teulisch
2014-12-16, 05:27 PM
i used to play with someone who had some very bad GMing habits. basically, he railroaded heavily. in one game, when i handed him a bucket-load of plot hooks for my character in a champions game, he told me 'the game is not about YOU' and then built his campaign around another character's Hunted, and then made sure 100% of his bad guys had the defense to my NND (defense was not needing to eat food, for the magic sword was named Famine). he also proved that he did not read character sheets, or even listen to what powers did, before approving them when he was confused by one of my powers.

in another champions game, he interupted me mid-chargen with a new house rule that OCV could not be raised above 7. i later found that i was the only one he applied this new rule to, and it killed my squid-ninja concept so i ended up playing a demi-brick instead. when a Viper craft was escaping, he started with how i couldnt catch it, but my super-leap was enough to latch on t the stated target. then he said it was slippery, but i had clinging. then he said it had an electricity NND, but i had the resistance.... he had me take the damage anyway. apparently in his games, player NND always fails, and villain NND always works. he was railroading HARD to let them escape. later on he killed my suspension of disbelief and enjoyment of his game entirely, with a 'alarm' to gather the heroes that i was not allowed to ignore IC. later, when i brought up constructive criticism of what i felt was not fun about his game, he screamed at me until i stopped trying to talk to him....

the final straw was a rogue trader game. he never reads his email, so didnt have a copy of the ship he asked me to build for him (he had previously gotten upset at my help building a shadowrun character when i emailed him, to the email he GAVE me for that, the character weeks ahead asking if it needed any changes- because it wasnt just so). during chargen he basically nerfed my rogue trader(captain) character, who was focusing heavily on the trade skill which would be a contested roll to afford to buy things, as he didnt like the idea of me being competant. he then railroaded the game so heavily it may as well have been a novel, and then threw out the sub-system so i could never use the skill i had invested so heavily in. i left and never came back.

the issue, is that he was a control freak. he wanted 'roleplay', but he wanted it HIS way. when he is a player, he ends up volunteering new problems into the story that sometimes screw over the entire group. when he GMs he railroads and ignores player input, while not allowing any action outside his plans. and he wasnt the worst one in that group, just the most obviously bad about it. heck, he was so bad about it he put Orks in deadlands because he thought indians were passe... he was the sort to not even read all the rules for a game, and make stuff up to cover what he didnt know as he went along. he didnt trust me because he knew i had read and understood the rules, and he was afraid i was going to beat up his precious villains.

i haven't gamed in the last 2 years, because its hard to find a group. but as they say, no gaming is better than bad gaming. those people could not sandbox to save their lives. half of them wouldnt even try to roleplay, and may as well have not been there at all for how much they contributed to the game. and they seemed to define 'rules lawyer' and 'power gamer' as someone who had bothered to read the rules and setting material before building a character.

SiuiS
2014-12-16, 05:51 PM
No. It's a 2-in-3 chance the second time (As evidenced by every single mathematical test of the situation).

No, it's a two in three chance if you include the entire scenario. If you're now at "pick one door of two" you're at a one in two chance. Just like before you pick up your die, your odds of getting a 20 within twenty rolls is statistically high but your odds of getting a 20 for any one of those individual rolls is always 5%.


i used to play with someone who had some very bad GMing habits. basically, he railroaded heavily. in one game, when i handed him a bucket-load of plot hooks for my character in a champions game, he told me 'the game is not about YOU' and then built his campaign around another character's Hunted, and then made sure 100% of his bad guys had the defense to my NND (defense was not needing to eat food, for the magic sword was named Famine). he also proved that he did not read character sheets, or even listen to what powers did, before approving them when he was confused by one of my powers.

I had one of those. I wrote up a bunch of stuff for my mount as a paladin and wanted to talk about the quest to go on to get it. His response was a smug "I already have a mount for you and the adventure planned, I don't need you pretending to DM for me", which seems harmless out of context but was a final straw of sorts.

Knaight
2014-12-16, 06:05 PM
No, it's a two in three chance if you include the entire scenario. If you're now at "pick one door of two" you're at a one in two chance. Just like before you pick up your die, your odds of getting a 20 within twenty rolls is statistically high but your odds of getting a 20 for any one of those individual rolls is always 5%.

It's not picking one door of two. It's picking one door, or the guaranteed correct door of the remaining doors (generally two). Now, if one wrong door was revealed before the first choice, then the chances would be 50% and 50%.

comicshorse
2014-12-16, 06:08 PM
in another champions game, he interupted me mid-chargen with a new house rule that OCV could not be raised above 7. i later found that i was the only one he applied this new rule to, and it killed my squid-ninja concept so i ended up playing a demi-brick instead.

Please tell me more

Sartharina
2014-12-16, 06:23 PM
No, it's a two in three chance if you include the entire scenario. If you're now at "pick one door of two" you're at a one in two chance. Just like before you pick up your die, your odds of getting a 20 within twenty rolls is statistically high but your odds of getting a 20 for any one of those individual rolls is always 5%.Except it's not - the object the door is behind doesn't get 'reshuffled' between the two doors left open, so the outcome of the first pick remains relevant in the second pick. Opening the 999,998 other doors does not increase the odds of the door you picked being the right one, and the rest of the doors can do anything they want if you don't switch away.

If it were 50/50, in a test of 10,000 runs, switching would result in only 5,000 successes within an acceptable deviation range. Instead, results put switching closer to 6,700 victories consistently.

Susano-wo
2014-12-16, 07:09 PM
Ok, I finally get it, but goddamn, it feels wrong still :smalleek:
I found this while re-reading the Wikipedia article, and it finally got through to me. ""Monty is saying in effect: you can keep your one door or you can have the other two doors".
That combined with the matrix showing that once you have picked a door, only one out of three scenarios lead to losing if you switch, which I kinda didn't accept before, but now I do. (It felt like there were 4 choices, but I guess the first 2 aren't really 2, since it doesn't matter which door is opened if you picked right)
Still feel like freakin voo-doo :smallamused:
at least I am in good company: "Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation confirming the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999)."

Teulisch
2014-12-16, 08:21 PM
Please tell me more

well..... the idea is a hero with 6 squid tentacles coming from his back, able to hide like a mimic octopus with the 'chameleon' version of invisibility. i was going for the personality of spiderman (sarcastic jokes and high intelligence) with the ninjitsu of batman, while able to do all of this underwater. a high-agility ninja, using his powers to confound evil. after i got hit with the ocv cap, however... it really killed my skill focus so i went demibrick instead, a much less interesting approach. i had a multipower for movement ability, so he has swimming, super-leap, super running (imagine 4 tentacles making 2 big wheels, and using the other 2 to 'steer'), and even gliding with the squid-mantle around the tentacles. i even had a 'ink' power, a one-charge darkness ability that only worked underwater.

the game was set by the great lakes, and his secret ID was as an oceanography professor (he had the science skill trained very high, i think to 18).

his squid-fu ended up focusing on the leg-sweep, and using the stretching power on his tentacles to get either indirect attacks, or add a bonus to damage. kind of wish i could have built him as more of a skill-monkey than a demibrick, but i was derailed mid chargen, so i never got the other version of the idea really fleshed out on paper. fun character that i would want to play again (and i did make a M&M 2e version that i never got to use as well), but the actual game was lacking.

Excession
2014-12-16, 11:14 PM
No, it's a two in three chance if you include the entire scenario. If you're now at "pick one door of two" you're at a one in two chance. Just like before you pick up your die, your odds of getting a 20 within twenty rolls is statistically high but your odds of getting a 20 for any one of those individual rolls is always 5%.
It's nothing like rolling a d20 20 times. It's like the host rolled a d3 once to place the car. The two decisions here aren't independent. It's also massively counter-intuitive, so I don't blame you for being confused by it. For me, Knaight put it best here:

It's not picking one door of two. It's picking one door, or the guaranteed correct door of the remaining doors (generally two).
Another analogy for you SiuiS. Say a friend rolls a fair d3, but keeps it covered. You have to guess what number is on it. What are your odds of winning if you guess 1 each time, versus rolling your own d3 and guessing that? It's a 1/3 chance each time, because your choice isn't the random element here. The same applies to the door problem: only the original d3 roll matters, not your later d3 or d2 rolls.

Rion
2014-12-17, 04:55 AM
It's also massively counter-intuitive, so I don't blame you for being confused by it.
That varies from person to person, I don't find it coutner-intuitive for exactly the reason I remember someone posting in the thread, but can't find again (say something if you posted it):

The choice between switching vs. not switching, is basically a choice between picking one door or two doors.

To explain what that means let's imagine a different game, there are three doors. One of them have a car behind them, two of them a goat. Now you are given two different choices, first: Do you want to open two doors, or one door? Second: Which door(s) do you want to open?
Everyone should be able to see that while the second choice might be difficult, in the first one you immediately pick opening two doors instead of one.

So, let's change the game again: You have three doors, there is a car behind one of them, a goat behind the two others. Once again you can choose to either open two doors, or one door. However you don't directly choose to open two doors. Instead this new game is split into two phases, in the first phase you pick a single door, and after you have picked the single door you are given the choice to exchange that one door for opening the two others instead. Would you stay with the single door you choose in the first phase, or choose to open the two remaining doors?

Now let's change the game again, the new game is exactly like the previous one, with the single exception that if you choose to open both of the doors you didn't pick in the first phase, the show host himself pulls the handle of one of the doors while you pull the handle of the other.

Now, what is the difference between the last game, and the very first? The answer is A) That the show host pulls his door handle before you choose whether you want to switch, and B) That the show host can only pull the handle of a door with a goat behind it.

goto124
2014-12-17, 05:51 AM
Yes. Because sometimes being an uppity pissant isn't the best decision. The balrog king of the five fires of damnation says bow or die, and you don't choose now, you can't really gripe when he kills you.

That said, it's not always done well. I've had a DM do this out of the blue to try and discipline the players. Bad move.

What you described in the first paragraph was pretty much taken to the extreme, with the balrog king determining everything in your peasant life. Uh.


well..... the idea is a hero with 6 squid tentacles coming from his back, able to hide like a mimic octopus with the 'chameleon' version of invisibility. i was going for the personality of spiderman (sarcastic jokes and high intelligence) with the ninjitsu of batman, while able to do all of this underwater. a high-agility ninja, using his powers to confound evil. after i got hit with the ocv cap, however... it really killed my skill focus so i went demibrick instead, a much less interesting approach. i had a multipower for movement ability, so he has swimming, super-leap, super running (imagine 4 tentacles making 2 big wheels, and using the other 2 to 'steer'), and even gliding with the squid-mantle around the tentacles. i even had a 'ink' power, a one-charge darkness ability that only worked underwater.

the game was set by the great lakes, and his secret ID was as an oceanography professor (he had the science skill trained very high, i think to 18).

his squid-fu ended up focusing on the leg-sweep, and using the stretching power on his tentacles to get either indirect attacks, or add a bonus to damage. kind of wish i could have built him as more of a skill-monkey than a demibrick, but i was derailed mid chargen, so i never got the other version of the idea really fleshed out on paper. fun character that i would want to play again (and i did make a M&M 2e version that i never got to use as well), but the actual game was lacking.

Wow, the DM had railroaded so much that you changed your character completely?
*comforts you*

SiuiS
2014-12-17, 01:10 PM
It's not picking one door of two. It's picking one door, or the guaranteed correct door of the remaining doors (generally two). Now, if one wrong door was revealed before the first choice, then the chances would be 50% and 50%.

... That's what happens. You pick a door. There is one bad door remaining, guaranteed. That bad door is shown to you. You then pick one of two doors, one of which is guaranteed correct and one of which is guaranteed bad.


Except it's not - the object the door is behind doesn't get 'reshuffled' between the two doors left open, so the outcome of the first pick remains relevant in the second pick.

Why would shuffling matter? It's not actively revealed to you so it's still in flux. The outcome of the first pick is resolved by removing one third of the problem. The new, reduced problem has two choices. You pick one. Are you saying that there is not a one in two chance that any of two doors is correct?

I'm not talking about a hypothetical ten billion door problem. In talking about the actual game show. There's three. You pick one, a bad one gets opened, you now have two. You choose between two. A choice between two options with one good option and one bad option is a 50/50 shot.


It's nothing like rolling a d20 20 times.

You missed the point. You have a 100% shot statistically to roll a 20 if you toss twenty times. You only have a 5% shot of rolling a 20. Both are true. This frequently confounds people who try to gamble.

I'm not confused by the problem at all. I'm reframing it for people who were confused, and I'm fighting people who are saying "no, no, don't reduce it to something that makes sense to you, add in abstract math to confuse yourself more".

The second half is a choice between two – 50%. The first half is a choice between three – 33%. That's all you really need to convey to explain the Monty haul problem at a basic level. Go too fast and you screw things up.


What you described in the first paragraph was pretty much taken to the extreme, with the balrog king determining everything in your peasant life. Uh.


The first paragraph was this, actually.

"I've been in situations where players essentially say 'Bow before me, for I am High Lord of Something, and kiss my feet. Else you suffer', and keep true to their promise. It is realistic, but...

Has any one encountered this kind of DM?"

And then there was nothing else about it in that post. So no, there is nothing in what I responded to about controlling your life's minutiae. That specific may be why this general question was asked, but I didn't answer his campaign and game specific scenario. I answered his general one.

Cazero
2014-12-17, 01:44 PM
Are you saying that there is not a one in two chance that any of two doors is correct?
Exactly that. There is not a one in two chance that any of two doors is correct. The way the show is handled distributes probability unevenly.

It's just like saying a dice has exactly 1/6 probability to get a 6 when it's a loaded dice that get 6s half of the time. You can pretend all you want that the probability is 1/6, it actually is 1/2 regardless of your understanding of the maths involved.

jaydubs
2014-12-17, 04:06 PM
You have a 100% shot statistically to roll a 20 if you toss twenty times. You only have a 5% shot of rolling a 20. Both are true. This frequently confounds people who try to gamble.


That's not actually true. A single 20 result is simply the expected average number of 20s you get from rolling twenty times. Most of the time, you actually won't end up with exactly 1 20 out of 20 throws on a d20.



For instance, you have a 35.85% chance of getting no 20s at all, from rolling a d20 20 times. .95^20.

And I think... (it's been a while since I've done probability calculations, so I might be misremembering the formulas):

You have a 37.7% chance of getting a single 20 result in 20 rolls. .95^19 * .05 * 20.

Leaving a 26.41% chance of getting 2 or more 20 results in 20 rolls.

Mr Beer
2014-12-17, 05:42 PM
You have a 100% shot statistically to roll a 20 if you toss twenty times.

This is incorrect. The changes of rolling at least one 20 in 20 rolls is 100% minus the iterative odds of not rolling a 20 i.e.

1 - ((19/20) to power 20) = 1 minus 35.8486% = 64.1514%

That's far from 100%...intuitively I think we can see it's incorrect to state the odds are 100% because that implies 30 rolls gives us 150%, which doesn't make sense.

huttj509
2014-12-17, 06:47 PM
... That's what happens. You pick a door. There is one bad door remaining, guaranteed. That bad door is shown to you. You then pick one of two doors, one of which is guaranteed correct and one of which is guaranteed bad.

Let's try this.

I roll a d3, hiding the result from you, but I can see the result.

You guess what the d3 rolled. Let's say you guess "1".

Whether you're right, or not, I look at the result, and truthfully tell you "I did not roll a 2." Since I have 2 choices you didn't pick, I always have at least a wrong one to tell you, and you know that's what I'll do. If I have 2 wrong choices to pick from, I'll just pick one (assume sufficiently random so no streaks or visual tells when I look at the die).

Would you say, at this point, the odds of it being a 1 or a 3 are 50/50? Did my saying "it's not a 2" make your initial guess something other than a 1 in 3 chance?
Your initial guess was before I gave any other information.

If I don't let you pick again, how often did you guess wrong?

If I let you pick again, and you stay with your first choice, how is that different, odds-wise, from me not letting you pick again?

Aliquid
2014-12-17, 07:02 PM
... That's what happens. You pick a door. There is one bad door remaining, guaranteed. That bad door is shown to you. You then pick one of two doors, one of which is guaranteed correct and one of which is guaranteed bad.The thing that messes the whole process up is that bad door that is shown to you is not picked randomly.

You pick one door of three randomly, and he picks a one door of two with knowledge and an agenda. Therefore his choice tells you something about those two doors.

Or looking at it another way:
When you pick a door, you get one of these two results:
a) You picked the right door (33.3% chance)
b) You picked the wrong door (66.6% chance)

In scenario (a), the host will randomly open another door. In scenario (b) the host will deliberately avoid the “good” door and open the “bad” door to show you.

You don’t know what scenario you have, but looking at this as an outsider:
Scenario (a) you always should stick with your choice
Scenario (b) you always should switch.

So, 66.6% of the time you should switch. Because 66.6% of the time the host manipulated the scenario by deliberately avoiding the good door.

Gavran
2014-12-18, 12:14 AM
Wildly off topic, but then half the thread is already so...

I came to terms with the Monty Hall problem some time ago, but apparently it slipped away from me since then. Reading through this thread reactivated the same need to "get it" that I feel whenever I come across something like this, and I have once more understood it. Here is the video that I found most helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lb-6rxZxx0 it touches on the "pick two doors" things a few people have posted, but in video format it solidified my understanding. (Hopefully, to stay this time. >.>)

Arbane
2014-12-18, 01:53 AM
(Terrible game story skipped)

(What is it called when you hate a game, and love to rant endlessly about it?)


The Internet? :smallwink:

Semiseriously, "Bile Fascination" is one term for for "the feeling of hating something so much that you refuse to ignore it".


I guess it also depends on how much power the authority has? This can vary wildly from game to game. Authority may actually mean nothing in one game, and almost completely dictate your IC life in another.

Paranoia and Legend of the Five Rings both spring immediately to mind.

SiuiS
2014-12-19, 01:27 AM
That's not actually true.


This is incorrect.

Did you keep the context of contrasting the two grosse explanations to get the point I was making or just home in on the one sentence? My method of presentation was intentional.


The thing that messes the whole process up is that bad door that is shown to you is not picked randomly.

I know. Again, what do you think the average person will get? "The second choice is two doors, so it's no longer a 1 in 3 chance" or a strong of numbers that make people's eyes glaze over? I'm not convincing the math need they are wrong, I am defending the reasoning behind a sloppy (from their point of view) but sufficient explanation.

Mr Beer
2014-12-19, 02:26 AM
Did you keep the context of contrasting the two grosse explanations to get the point I was making or just home in on the one sentence? My method of presentation was intentional.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but yeah, I homed in on the thing that you said that was incorrect. Checking the surrounding sentences...it's still incorrect. Are you saying it was intentionally incorrect? I can't see how that helps illustrate how maths works.

SiuiS
2014-12-20, 03:00 AM
For the same reason we say cold causes things to shrink instead of establishing that contraction is nonlinear and sometimes wraps back around to expansion as temperature cools, and the same reason that we explain temperature as got or cold rather than the relative energy to entropy of a closed system. Because once you establish "sufficient" you can begin teaching the real math. But if you try to go whole hog without that foot in the door, you lose the audience.

Arbane
2014-12-20, 02:33 PM
Any chance you guys could move the probability stuff to another thread?

Here, I made one just for it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?389116-Arguing-about-Probability-and-Statistics-(From-DM-s-who-want-you-to-Roleplay-but-)&p=18558029#post18558029).