PDA

View Full Version : Custom Creations in a Game?



Darth Ultron
2017-07-31, 08:22 AM
So this came up in my game again, and it makes me wonder how others do this. How do you handle custom items, everything from classes, to spells and feats and other things. in a game? As the ''rules'' just say the custom things can be made, I'm not sure if the edition matters.

1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates? This is a weird question for me, but some players(often, but not always the optimizing roll players) think (''demand'') that before the game even starts that the DM must give all the players full write ups of any custom creations.

The more reasonable players say that spells, magic items, and monsters and mundane custom items can be unknown to the players, but anything else such as feats or classes must be told in detail before the game starts.

So, some players think it's ok for a spellcaster to have a custom made spell or magic item. I guess with the ''in game'' idea that the character can make a spell or item and not tell or share it with anyone. But no one can ''make a feat'', so any feat is know and available to everyone.

As DM I do the more: Players only know about Custom Creations I choose to tell them about. The rest they don't know about, at least until they encounter them in the game. The reasonable players think it's ok for say a Fire Cult to have a secret custom spell, but oddly will say they can't have a secret feat, alternative class feature, or class. Also I don't think the players should just get the rules text of any Custom Creation, unless they gain it in the game. So their characters might encounter the Fire Cult and see the 'Claws of Fire'' spell, but they don't immediately get the rule write up of the spell.

This allows Custom Creations to be another form of treasure. It's something a character must find to be able to use. And this provides a good motivation to adventure. But even doing it the more reasoanable player way would mean no 'treasure like feats', for example.

2.Do Players all ways get full Rule Write Ups of Custom Creations This is related to question one. A lot of players seem to think that ''the player'' should know everything ''in the rules'', and they define ''the rules'' as ''whatever they want to know at any moment''. So they think the players should be given the full rules write up text of any custom creation, just like it would be in a rule book. The player does not know when or where in the game it will be used, but they demand to have all the information.

As DM, I'd say all Custom Creations are unknown to a player, unless their character gains it somehow in the game. And a lot of them will remain unknown to the players forever. And that players can encounter something in the game, without knowing the full write up of it.

The demand for the 'full write up'' often feels like a cheep optimizer roll player exploit where they just want to ''use the rules to find an exploit or loophole''. It also ruins any mystery or surprise as it high lights the ''you will encounter this custom creation soon in the game''. This also has the idea that the player will ''pretend'' like the character does not know all the information the player does. So when the player is given the write up of the Spider Sphere of Doom, and then their character encounters ''a large white sphere with black spider designs '' they will have their character act like they don't know what it is. Sometimes. More often then not though they will ''for no reason'' prepare and counter the effects they know are coming as they read the write up. So they will be like ''oh, my character just casts delay poisons for no reason as soon as they see the sphere, as the player knows it summons spiders.

Most games, or at least most of my games, also use lots of rule books. I only ban a couple of them. So that is a ton of things the players are ''free to look up and know about'' (but not at the table, during a game). But the mass of things hides them and does not highlight them, with like two dozen books and hundreds of magic items, few players can remember even a quarter of them. But when the DM hands you a Custom Creation write up, it's a huge ''easy button''.

3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations? This really comes only from the Hostile Adversarial Roll Players. They want to ''check the DM'' and make sure the DM is following the rules and playing right (in their view). And if they, and the other players, don't like something, they think they should be able to veto it.

I would never allow this, and would not even game with such a person.

4.How much Custom Creations is too much?

Some players complain that ''we are all playing the same game'' or some nonsense like that, and that means everything in the game must be known to all and by the book. They want to play only the boring, by the book game. Over and over and over and over again. So they say Custom Creations should be ''rare''.

Sadly, lots of otherwise good players also think this...for reasons few can explain..other then the exploiting the rules or such.

And ''rare'' can be ''a couple''(like three?) a game to ''once in a while''(like only one every 2-3 games).

As DM, I think any amount is great and fine. I don't think I've ever done a ''100%'' game, but I've done like ''a goblin wizard with all Custom Spells''.

So, how does everyone else do it?

Quertus
2017-07-31, 10:15 AM
Great topic! I hadn't given it as much thought as it deserves. Lets see...


As the ''rules'' just say the custom things can be made, I'm not sure if the edition matters.

This actually matters quite a bit, as the system often has built in assumptions about how knowledge works, let alone differing systems for character growth.

This won't be the first time that I've said this, but I suspect that you're playing a system that doesn't match your style very well.


1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates? This is a weird question for me, but some players(often, but not always the optimizing roll players) think (''demand'') that before the game even starts that the DM must give all the players full write ups of any custom creations.

The more reasonable players say that spells, magic items, and monsters and mundane custom items can be unknown to the players, but anything else such as feats or classes must be told in detail before the game starts.

So, some players think it's ok for a spellcaster to have a custom made spell or magic item. I guess with the ''in game'' idea that the character can make a spell or item and not tell or share it with anyone. But no one can ''make a feat'', so any feat is know and available to everyone.

As DM I do the more: Players only know about Custom Creations I choose to tell them about. The rest they don't know about, at least until they encounter them in the game. The reasonable players think it's ok for say a Fire Cult to have a secret custom spell, but oddly will say they can't have a secret feat, alternative class feature, or class. Also I don't think the players should just get the rules text of any Custom Creation, unless they gain it in the game. So their characters might encounter the Fire Cult and see the 'Claws of Fire'' spell, but they don't immediately get the rule write up of the spell.

This allows Custom Creations to be another form of treasure. It's something a character must find to be able to use. And this provides a good motivation to adventure. But even doing it the more reasoanable player way would mean no 'treasure like feats', for example.

In D&D 3e, because of builds and trap options and such, yes, there is the expectation that you should either present all custom content* up front, or allow your players to rebuild their characters at will, to utilize this content.

Honestly, what's cooler than having a player build a character around the custom content you made?

In systems that aren't as horrible at locking you into a build as 3e, you might have more leeway to have "treasure feats".

* any that could affect character builds. Which, given gear dependency, prohibited schools, etc, is arguable everything. But definitely feats and prestige classes.


2.Do Players all ways get full Rule Write Ups of Custom Creations This is related to question one. A lot of players seem to think that ''the player'' should know everything ''in the rules'', and they define ''the rules'' as ''whatever they want to know at any moment''. So they think the players should be given the full rules write up text of any custom creation, just like it would be in a rule book. The player does not know when or where in the game it will be used, but they demand to have all the information.

As DM, I'd say all Custom Creations are unknown to a player, unless their character gains it somehow in the game. And a lot of them will remain unknown to the players forever. And that players can encounter something in the game, without knowing the full write up of it.

The demand for the 'full write up'' often feels like a cheep optimizer roll player exploit where they just want to ''use the rules to find an exploit or loophole''. It also ruins any mystery or surprise as it high lights the ''you will encounter this custom creation soon in the game''. This also has the idea that the player will ''pretend'' like the character does not know all the information the player does. So when the player is given the write up of the Spider Sphere of Doom, and then their character encounters ''a large white sphere with black spider designs '' they will have their character act like they don't know what it is. Sometimes. More often then not though they will ''for no reason'' prepare and counter the effects they know are coming as they read the write up. So they will be like ''oh, my character just casts delay poisons for no reason as soon as they see the sphere, as the player knows it summons spiders.

Most games, or at least most of my games, also use lots of rule books. I only ban a couple of them. So that is a ton of things the players are ''free to look up and know about'' (but not at the table, during a game). But the mass of things hides them and does not highlight them, with like two dozen books and hundreds of magic items, few players can remember even a quarter of them. But when the DM hands you a Custom Creation write up, it's a huge ''easy button''.

Well, this one's tricky. Personally, I prefer the 2e air of mystery, and actually using your brain and elbow grease to figure out what things are / do, over the 3e knowledge check mindset. But, in the 3e that you appear to be playing, characters with appropriate knowledges should just know stuff. Those without such knowledge... should probably be given write ups after the fact. What's cooler than having your custom content reused in someone else's game? That, and I prefer to run my characters in multiple games in the first place.


3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations? This really comes only from the Hostile Adversarial Roll Players. They want to ''check the DM'' and make sure the DM is following the rules and playing right (in their view). And if they, and the other players, don't like something, they think they should be able to veto it.

I would never allow this, and would not even game with such a person.

Well, when you declare something with the stats of an ancient dragon to be CR 1, yes, there's a problem. When you declare something better than a vorpal blade to be worth 2 copper, there's a problem. And I've had plenty of DMs who really were this bad.

Even I can occasionally make calls on custom prices or custom CR that merit review. Having skilled players who are willing to help keep the world consistent and reasonable is a good thing.

Being willing to work with your players makes the game much better.

Still, I'm struggling to come up with anything that would make any sense for the players to outright veto... EDIT: a wizard healing spell in the enchantment school, maybe?


4.How much Custom Creations is too much?

Some players complain that ''we are all playing the same game'' or some nonsense like that, and that means everything in the game must be known to all and by the book. They want to play only the boring, by the book game. Over and over and over and over again. So they say Custom Creations should be ''rare''.

Sadly, lots of otherwise good players also think this...for reasons few can explain..other then the exploiting the rules or such.

And ''rare'' can be ''a couple''(like three?) a game to ''once in a while''(like only one every 2-3 games).

As DM, I think any amount is great and fine. I don't think I've ever done a ''100%'' game, but I've done like ''a goblin wizard with all Custom Spells''.

So, how does everyone else do it?

Quertus invented more custom sensory / detect / information gathering spells than there are published spells in core. I personally love custom / puzzle monsters. There is no such thing as too much.

However, things that are common in your world, and things that are common knowledge in your world, should be "published" to the players in some fashion, to represent their knowledge of these things.

Jay R
2017-07-31, 12:26 PM
1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates?
2.Do Players all ways get full Rule Write Ups of Custom Creations
3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations?

No, no, and no. The primary reason to have custom creations is to re-inject a bit of mystery - monsters whose weaknesses aren't known, magic items which are dangerous to try to use, enemies with unexpected powers.

In my last 2e world, the introduction to the game included the following:



DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefit of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. Several monsters have different alignments from the books.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.

Early on, I introduced a race called "goblins". They were functionally orcs, with two changes.
1. They were albino. This explains why sunshine hurts their abilities.
2. They were almost mindless, and very easy to control. The only time the PCs saw them without a leader, they fought by just running in and attacking. The third time they saw them was a seige, and there was one ogre standing behind each goblin unit, to keep them from running away.

Once, the goblins appeared riding wolves. Their tactic that time was to divert the weakest looking PC away from the party, and then try to make off with him. This is the tactic of a wolf pack, indicating that the leader wasn't the goblin chief, but the alpha wolf he was riding.

It didn't go that far, but I had plans to introduce elves - but they would have been the heartless, glamorous elves of Terry Pratchett's Lords and Ladies.

Obviously, describing what the goblins and elves were like at the start of the game would have prevented their whole purpose, which was to provide mysteries to solve.


3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations?

Players approve every aspect of every game in the standard, general way -- they can always vote with their feet. I made it very clear (see quote above) what they were in for. No player chose to leave the game, and no player complained about it.


4.How much Custom Creations is too much?

That depends on the DM and the players, and how the game goes. There is no general answer.

VoxRationis
2017-07-31, 01:41 PM
If I introduce new content, it's often in the form of specialized knowledge that only certain groups in-universe know. Characters will need to either have a very good reason for having that knowledge or will need to use in-game roleplaying to get access to it.

For example, in one 3.5 campaign which was aborted due to people (including myself) all moving away, I developed a tactical feat called something like "Spear-Planting Charges" so that a particular group of NPCs (some traditionalist tribal fighters in the most remote reaches of the setting) would have a distinctive fighting style. This feat would be available to characters, but only if they were A) from the specific subculture already, or B) befriended and trained with members of that subculture as part of the campaign. Since the characters don't have any exposure or contact with the feat beyond seeing it in action, there is no reason for them to know the rules behind it.

Alternatively, sometimes there are pieces of new content that are introduced that are appropriate to be applied more broadly. In those cases, I would make the rules known.

Tinkerer
2017-07-31, 01:41 PM
1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates?

Borderline for me. Theoretically yes with the exception of background feats/edges (things which specifically must be taken at character creation although even those will often come up when someone has to make up a new character). Although "access" can be considerably more limited than one might think (might require specific training for skills/feats/powers). I'm not saying that it is impossible for the characters to learn and gain access to anything which I may create, I'm just saying that it may be extremely difficult and usually not worth it. Several NPCs have skills which no player would want because they are far too situational.

2.Do Players all ways get full Rule Write Ups of Custom Creations

Nope, although I will sometimes give them copies of characters which died or otherwise they won't see again/nations which they've overthrown etc... as a sort of behind the scenes look at DMing. Partly to show that I'm always playing fair, partly because sometimes the NPC pulled off something which the PCs didn't even know was possible and I wanted to show the players what happened, and partly as trophies so they can stick them in their character books like a severed head.

3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations?

No, although I will listen to their input on occasion. But really just no

4.How much Custom Creations is too much?

That partially depends on the world. If it's a custom world than definitely the sky is the limit. If you are running Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms or Shadowrun or any other established world than I would have to say that you are running too much custom if the group cannot even recognize the world. Actually... I take back what I said about never having too much in a custom world. If your PCs are inherently inferior to your NPCs due to playing by a different set of rules then you probably have too much custom content (and you're pretty bad at making custom content).

On Custom Content in general I am of the mind set that it mechanically on the whole it should be inferior to the content in the book. This helps keep you from a bad case of power creep and it reinforces that the options in the book are the most common options for a good reason, they are just better generally. However they do have the advantage of you being able to control the situation where they come up so situational abilities are more useful in the hands of NPCs than PCs. This helps to balance things out.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-31, 02:12 PM
My only issue with "you know nothing about this world" is that it turns the PCs into people who are unlearned about the world they've lived in their whole life. If these albino-goblin-orcs are a regular problem, it is a little weird for these adventurers and longtime residents of the world to be entirely ignorant of them.

It's one thing to introduce a race with a new description before the reveal, but if I'm an elf, I should immediately recognize another elf, no matter how unique the setting.

FreddyNoNose
2017-07-31, 02:29 PM
So this came up in my game again, and it makes me wonder how others do this. How do you handle custom items, everything from classes, to spells and feats and other things. in a game? As the ''rules'' just say the custom things can be made, I'm not sure if the edition matters.

1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates? This is a weird question for me, but some players(often, but not always the optimizing roll players) think (''demand'') that before the game even starts that the DM must give all the players full write ups of any custom creations.

The more reasonable players say that spells, magic items, and monsters and mundane custom items can be unknown to the players, but anything else such as feats or classes must be told in detail before the game starts.

So, some players think it's ok for a spellcaster to have a custom made spell or magic item. I guess with the ''in game'' idea that the character can make a spell or item and not tell or share it with anyone. But no one can ''make a feat'', so any feat is know and available to everyone.

As DM I do the more: Players only know about Custom Creations I choose to tell them about. The rest they don't know about, at least until they encounter them in the game. The reasonable players think it's ok for say a Fire Cult to have a secret custom spell, but oddly will say they can't have a secret feat, alternative class feature, or class. Also I don't think the players should just get the rules text of any Custom Creation, unless they gain it in the game. So their characters might encounter the Fire Cult and see the 'Claws of Fire'' spell, but they don't immediately get the rule write up of the spell.

This allows Custom Creations to be another form of treasure. It's something a character must find to be able to use. And this provides a good motivation to adventure. But even doing it the more reasoanable player way would mean no 'treasure like feats', for example.

2.Do Players all ways get full Rule Write Ups of Custom Creations This is related to question one. A lot of players seem to think that ''the player'' should know everything ''in the rules'', and they define ''the rules'' as ''whatever they want to know at any moment''. So they think the players should be given the full rules write up text of any custom creation, just like it would be in a rule book. The player does not know when or where in the game it will be used, but they demand to have all the information.

As DM, I'd say all Custom Creations are unknown to a player, unless their character gains it somehow in the game. And a lot of them will remain unknown to the players forever. And that players can encounter something in the game, without knowing the full write up of it.

The demand for the 'full write up'' often feels like a cheep optimizer roll player exploit where they just want to ''use the rules to find an exploit or loophole''. It also ruins any mystery or surprise as it high lights the ''you will encounter this custom creation soon in the game''. This also has the idea that the player will ''pretend'' like the character does not know all the information the player does. So when the player is given the write up of the Spider Sphere of Doom, and then their character encounters ''a large white sphere with black spider designs '' they will have their character act like they don't know what it is. Sometimes. More often then not though they will ''for no reason'' prepare and counter the effects they know are coming as they read the write up. So they will be like ''oh, my character just casts delay poisons for no reason as soon as they see the sphere, as the player knows it summons spiders.

Most games, or at least most of my games, also use lots of rule books. I only ban a couple of them. So that is a ton of things the players are ''free to look up and know about'' (but not at the table, during a game). But the mass of things hides them and does not highlight them, with like two dozen books and hundreds of magic items, few players can remember even a quarter of them. But when the DM hands you a Custom Creation write up, it's a huge ''easy button''.

3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations? This really comes only from the Hostile Adversarial Roll Players. They want to ''check the DM'' and make sure the DM is following the rules and playing right (in their view). And if they, and the other players, don't like something, they think they should be able to veto it.

I would never allow this, and would not even game with such a person.

4.How much Custom Creations is too much?

Some players complain that ''we are all playing the same game'' or some nonsense like that, and that means everything in the game must be known to all and by the book. They want to play only the boring, by the book game. Over and over and over and over again. So they say Custom Creations should be ''rare''.

Sadly, lots of otherwise good players also think this...for reasons few can explain..other then the exploiting the rules or such.

And ''rare'' can be ''a couple''(like three?) a game to ''once in a while''(like only one every 2-3 games).

As DM, I think any amount is great and fine. I don't think I've ever done a ''100%'' game, but I've done like ''a goblin wizard with all Custom Spells''.

So, how does everyone else do it?

Ha. No to this crap. I run 1st edition adnd and it is my game you are my guest. No metagaming allowed, so quoting rules is considered metagame. So it reading about the rules, monster manuals and all that. They can take a hike if they don't like it which is the power they have. No to players approving BS. I am not running an acting troupe or narrative ego-stroking circle jerk.

Creating custom spells requires appropriate: character level, a base of operations for a lab to experiment in (with equipment), money, lots of tomes, perhaps access to a sage, perhaps dealing with extra-planar creatures, lots of time, etc.

Also, just because some book, dragon/dungeon magazine or setting had a spell, doesn't make it appear in my world for magic-users to get. There is a limited list of spells they can get a chance to know baring "specials".

Items: They are numbered: You get 20 magic arrows, you receive, for example: Missile#101 which I have the documentation for and a count of expendables and how many have been used. I don't give them a sheet detailing the details. Even if a magic sword tells the player what it can do I don't. Because that might be true and it might not know what it can do, etc. There are spells such as Identify for trying to figure things out.

As to the rules, my game certainly is not 100% by the rules. Take UA, don't use it except for a few spells and such. No barbarians! Also, the xp gain for gold and magic items is tossed out the window! Mages have to find spells or research them rather than pick in roll beyond the starting spells. I am generous with scrolls and potions though. I don't like NWP, but for different reasons than you might think...

Sounds to me like these players are trying to control you. If you like being submissive like that go for it.

Tinkerer
2017-07-31, 02:32 PM
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.

This one I do take considerable umbrage with however. There is a world of difference between a kobold and an Umber Hulk, one is considerably easier to suplex than the other. If in an attempt to disguise your customized race you are obfuscating the most basic common sense that the players can have you've gone too far.

FreddyNoNose
2017-07-31, 02:34 PM
My only issue with "you know nothing about this world" is that it turns the PCs into people who are unlearned about the world they've lived in their whole life. If these albino-goblin-orcs are a regular problem, it is a little weird for these adventurers and longtime residents of the world to be entirely ignorant of them.

It's one thing to introduce a race with a new description before the reveal, but if I'm an elf, I should immediately recognize another elf, no matter how unique the setting.

My problem with that argument, is that those players who use it are often justifying encyclopedic knowledge of the books. And somehow it is perfect knowledge. They know how to kill a troll. Time to throw a troll with has rust monster effects when metal touches their skin. Consider it a game with a reset and you are starting to learn.

Back in the 70s, I would invite people to play and tell them all they need is pencil and paper. Some would rush out and buy all the books and learn as much as they can. Others would just show up. The ones who enjoyed it the most were those who didn't rush out and learn it all. They had the sense of mystery and enjoyment. They others would metagame and guess hit points and such and often didn't like anything that wasn't in the books. I still believe it.

Then again, if a player can't deal with it, they can take a hike.

Tinkerer
2017-07-31, 03:05 PM
My problem with that argument, is that those players who use it are often justifying encyclopedic knowledge of the books. And somehow it is perfect knowledge. They know how to kill a troll. Time to throw a troll with has rust monster effects when metal touches their skin. Consider it a game with a reset and you are starting to learn.

Back in the 70s, I would invite people to play and tell them all they need is pencil and paper. Some would rush out and buy all the books and learn as much as they can. Others would just show up. The ones who enjoyed it the most were those who didn't rush out and learn it all. They had the sense of mystery and enjoyment. They others would metagame and guess hit points and such and often didn't like anything that wasn't in the books. I still believe it.

Then again, if a player can't deal with it, they can take a hike.

It really depends on how common trolls are in this environment. If trolls are a common threat in the kingdom then it would be quite ridiculous to say that no one knows how to combat them. If that troll has rusting skin then there should be a good reason why they have rusting skin. And that is quite odd for me to say considering how often I'm on the other side of this argument.

Now I'm rather spoiled in this regard as I am currently running a group through a world where they have no experience whatsoever (oh Rifts, you so crazy) and thus they view every new creature with a suspicious eye. But even then I had them establish where they were from and I gave them each a top 10 list of monsters from the area where they grew up. The list included a short breakdown of the monsters known abilities and weaknesses from a rural point of view. And I use the 25 or so monsters from their lists (there was of course overlap between lists) constantly to try and establish the world around them. Otherwise it turns into a monster of the week show.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-31, 04:55 PM
My problem with that argument, is that those players who use it are often justifying encyclopedic knowledge of the books. And somehow it is perfect knowledge. They know how to kill a troll. Time to throw a troll with has rust monster effects when metal touches their skin. Consider it a game with a reset and you are starting to learn.

Back in the 70s, I would invite people to play and tell them all they need is pencil and paper. Some would rush out and buy all the books and learn as much as they can. Others would just show up. The ones who enjoyed it the most were those who didn't rush out and learn it all. They had the sense of mystery and enjoyment. They others would metagame and guess hit points and such and often didn't like anything that wasn't in the books. I still believe it.

Then again, if a player can't deal with it, they can take a hike.

This stance doesn't fix the incongruity of residents of a world knowing nothing about it.

It would be as strange as a story about suburban teenagers where they've never seen a schoolbus or end up in a zoo totally flabbergasted by all the strange, unknown creatures they've never seen before. (Assuming, obviously, they really are just elephants and usual zoo life)

You can have your cake and eat it too, on this one. Feel free to make up a new thing. But if my character would logically know about such a thing, don't tell me he's one of only 5 idiots who has never seen [insert really common critter here] before. Then I'll just retaliate by constantly asking if I know what really basic, stupid, obvious things like tables and chairs are since I'm obviously the most ignorant moron in the game world.

Yes. I'm petty.

Darth Ultron
2017-07-31, 05:06 PM
My only issue with "you know nothing about this world" is that it turns the PCs into people who are unlearned about the world they've lived in their whole life. If these albino-goblin-orcs are a regular problem, it is a little weird for these adventurers and longtime residents of the world to be entirely ignorant of them.

It's one thing to introduce a race with a new description before the reveal, but if I'm an elf, I should immediately recognize another elf, no matter how unique the setting.

Well, I like the more ''the characters know nothing'' myself. I want player and character knowledge to come from game play. Too many players don't want to just 'know' about the setting: they want to be super experts on the setting. And they use their knowledge to prevent the adventure, encounters or any type of experience from happening. So their character just walks around.

A good half the point of Custom Creations is to add mystery and wonder back into the game. Like the first time a new player encounters say a Rust Monster is priceless...a memory that they will remember forever. But you only get it once. Playing the game for even a short while and you will encounter and know all the common, iconic things in the game..again and again and again. And the ''sigh, whatever I do X to defeat or over come Y...again'' gets very boring.

But, on the other hand, ''knowing common stuff'' is a bit pointless. So I let players know this type of stuff no problem. It often does not matter. The players can read the handout 100 times were it says ''the Ice Elves of Northwatch are a good, honorable and noble race of elves''. They will still murderhobo every elf they meet to get more experience and loot. And even if they get to meet the Ice Elf King, they won't even try to role play like good, honorable and noble royal guests...they are going to act like five year olds no matter what.

And it does get crazy with the 'old' stuff the players ''think'' they know. Like a couple weeks ago I had a PC group that was being escorted through some woods by some elves. At night the elves cut down a tree to make a fire. Two players really flipped out over this demanding that ''elves would never, ever cut down a live tree''. In their interpretation of elves, they think they would never do that. They agreed that elves can hunt for food, but can't cut down trees....

BWR
2017-07-31, 05:14 PM
1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates?
No, not automatic. If the custom rules are intended to augment or replace existing stuff PCs get automatic access to, then yes. Custom monsters, spells, classes or whatever that opponents might have are not shared if the PCs have no reason to know of them.

2.Do Players all ways get full Rule Write Ups of Custom Creations
Not always, no. If the players have a good reason to need a full write up, they will get it. When I introduced a custom Force system to SWd20R, obviously my players had full insight for their Jedi characters. If PCs meet something the players will not have an opportunity to read up on them. I will often let players in on the details once the new Thing is gone for good, because players like to know those sorts of things.

3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations?
I do listen to input they may have. If any objections are strenuous and well founded, I may alter or remove what I have put in. Fortunately I don't have to worry (much) about players whining about things being unfair unless I actually have screwed up somewhere.

4.How much Custom Creations is too much?
How high is too high? I'm an incurable rules tinkerer and house ruler, and to a lesser extent homebrewer. I try to limit what new stuff I introduce because the games I run usually have enough stuff in them and we generally don't miss it. I'd say the real limit depends on custom stuff depends on who is using it. On communal stuff, basically any new mechanics that is freely available to the players, the limit is when the players start to feel that it is too much. On stuff I use as a GM, the limit is when I feel it's getting out of hand. The exact limits depends on the game, really.

Sajiri
2017-07-31, 05:26 PM
For 1. and 2. at least in my group, we only get to know what we need to know. Sometimes the custom creations are a plot device, and will be learned about through research or exploration in the game. We don't automatically get or give access to all custom creations, but if we do then we can know more about it. Unless it's specifically meant to be mysterious, we only get a full writeup IF we are given access to it with own characters. If it doesnt make sense for our character to know how it works, then we dont know about it (with that said we play in very RP focused games, so maybe it would be different if the focus is more on mechanics)

3. Regardless of who's DMing, we can come up with whatever we want and request whatever we want, but it's up to the DM to approve it. Usually, whoever's DMing will try to be generous and find a way to work in whatever the player wants, but player has to accept it may be tweaked for balance reasons or to just fit into the setting better.

4. When it gets to the point that its ruining the game or making it stressful, then its too much. If you like custom stuff and everyone can handle it without getting confused, then I see no reason not to use it. If people are struggling to keep track of changes and things not in the book, then maybe it's time to limit things to the book a bit more.

Jay R
2017-07-31, 05:48 PM
My only issue with "you know nothing about this world" is that it turns the PCs into people who are unlearned about the world they've lived in their whole life.

Actually, I did that by having them all grow up in an isolated village. The introduction to the campaign also said,


"You will begin as first level characters with very little knowledge of the outside world. Your character is just barely adult – 14 years old. You all know each other well, having grown up in the same tiny village. Everyone in this village grows their own food, and it’s rare to see anybody from outside the village, or anything not made in the village. There is a smith, a village priest, but very few other specialists.

You are friends, even if you choose to have very different outlooks, because almost everybody else in the village, and absolutely everyone else anywhere near your age, are dull villagers, with little imagination.

By contrast, you and your friends sometimes stare down the road, or into the forest, wondering what the world is like.
...
I will answer any reasonable questions about the village and its denizens. You do not know anything that cannot be learned in a backward, isolated village. (And yes, that’s why you’ve grown up semi-isolated.)"


If these albino-goblin-orcs are a regular problem, it is a little weird for these adventurers and longtime residents of the world to be entirely ignorant of them.

The universe has periods of relative peace, when most fantasy creatures don't exist, followed by an Age of Heroes, in which holes start letting in various thing from other planes. The PCs are at the beginning of the latest Age of Heroes. These goblins had not been in the world before in the last 200 years, and the player characters all came from an isolated village.


It's one thing to introduce a race with a new description before the reveal, but if I'm an elf, I should immediately recognize another elf, no matter how unique the setting.

That's right. That's one reason the PCs are all human.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-31, 07:26 PM
Actually, I did that by having them all grow up in an isolated village. The introduction to the campaign also said,


"You will begin as first level characters with very little knowledge of the outside world. Your character is just barely adult – 14 years old. You all know each other well, having grown up in the same tiny village. Everyone in this village grows their own food, and it’s rare to see anybody from outside the village, or anything not made in the village. There is a smith, a village priest, but very few other specialists.

You are friends, even if you choose to have very different outlooks, because almost everybody else in the village, and absolutely everyone else anywhere near your age, are dull villagers, with little imagination.

By contrast, you and your friends sometimes stare down the road, or into the forest, wondering what the world is like.
...
I will answer any reasonable questions about the village and its denizens. You do not know anything that cannot be learned in a backward, isolated village. (And yes, that’s why you’ve grown up semi-isolated.)"



The universe has periods of relative peace, when most fantasy creatures don't exist, followed by an Age of Heroes, in which holes start letting in various thing from other planes. The PCs are at the beginning of the latest Age of Heroes. These goblins had not been in the world before in the last 200 years, and the player characters all came from an isolated village.



That's right. That's one reason the PCs are all human.

This seems like a lot of unnecessary effort to get around metagaming compared to like... highlighting the few differences and letting the PCs be competent as opposed to being literal children thrust into the world with inexplicable training in things. (Unless they started at lvl 0, which they didn't. You don't just wake up as a fighter at 14.)

It just sounds.... needlessly contrived to do what you want.

SirBellias
2017-07-31, 07:57 PM
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No. There can't be too much, provided everyone rolls with it and has fun.

I don't have time to write stat blocks for everything. I seldom do. Now, I usually try to throw things together based on stat blocks in the monster manual, and don't change anything after combat starts, and let the players exploit the less obtuse holes in the rules (we're doing a 3.5 campaign for once and love to poke holes in things). Because that's just funny.

My players trust me to make the world in a fairly reasonable way, and I try to keep that up. Sometimes you gotta make stuff up. A lot of times it's more fun that way. I am more than willing to make up new rules for them if they want their characters to progress in specific ways (as it is usually much harder to find something that works mechanically similar to what they wanted). They get their custom class abilities and I get my custom monsters and abilities.

Now, I have asked to play a home brew class in a game I wasn't running where some rules were being horribly misinterpreted in favor of one character (not understanding subsystems is... strange to me), and now feel really silly for not trusting the DM to balance things out. Especially since no one else was using a home brew class (just misunderstanding the Tome of Battle). So I don't agree with that sort of intrusion, even though I instigated it? I guess that comes form me running too many games and not playing enough to trust others to know what they are doing.

Also, Gelatinous Cubes can get entangled. As far as I can tell. That was an interesting session.

Jay R
2017-07-31, 08:44 PM
This one I do take considerable umbrage with however. There is a world of difference between a kobold and an Umber Hulk, one is considerably easier to suplex than the other. If in an attempt to disguise your customized race you are obfuscating the most basic common sense that the players can have you've gone too far.

I'm not an idiot. If they see them in sunlight, of course they could tell the big one from the little one, and would get clearer descriptions. But in a dungeon, are those shadowy shapes four feet tall and forty feet away, or eight feet tall and eighty feet away? And how much detail about the shape of a mouth would you expect? The introduction isn't a hard and fast rule; it's a deliberately worst case scenario intended to make clear to the players that they won't automatically identify everything at once.

None of my players complained about this rule, or about how I ran the game.


This seems like a lot of unnecessary effort to get around metagaming ...

Agreed. But since I never said that the goal was to "get around metagaming," and the goal in fact was not to "get around metagaming," this guess about my motives is irrelevant.

The goal was to provide a world of mystery and the unknown, and allow the old-school experience of learning about the world. All my players enjoyed it, and although it ended two years ago, I've gotten requests to continue it as recently as last week.

You're the second person to voice disapprove of a game about which you know very little, while all the people who played it seemed to approve.


... compared to like... highlighting the few differences and letting the PCs be competent as opposed to being literal children thrust into the world with inexplicable training in things.

I actually considered these issues. The introduction included a lot of things that had nothing to do with the topic of custom creations, and so I didn't discuss it above. For instance:


Your character is way behind the average starting D&D character in knowledge of the world. I am making up for that by giving each PC one 3E Feat (see below), and one unusual starting item you would normally not have at the start of a game. This item must be justified by the character, and must be acceptable to me. For instance, a Wizard could start the game with a familiar. A Bard could have a well-made harp. Somebody with Animal Training could have a trained dog already (but not a horse or bird of prey.) A fighter might have a boomerang as one weapon. Come up with something fun, useful, and unusual, but not outrageous. It won’t be a magic item, but it could be something rare. [It is not armor. Your village can produce leather, studded leather, brigandine, or scale armor, but not chain or plate.]
...
I repeat – ask for exceptions to these rules. I want you to play what you want, and to have an unusual character. For instance, if you have a character idea that can’t work if you grew up in a small village, talk to me, and we’ll try to make it fit in – but it might mean that you miss the first half of the first adventure. If you have some cool idea for something your character wants to start off with, let’s discuss it. I might say no, or have it replace the Feat or the unusual item, or just grant the exception.


(Unless they started at lvl 0, which they didn't. You don't just wake up as a fighter at 14.)

What's the point of making up nonsense about something when you don't have complete information?

When you live surrounded by a haunted forest, you don't just wake up as a fighter; it's one of the things you learn. In fact, the introduction included the following:


It will be possible for your character to get started within the village, so if you wish to be, for instance, a druid, there will be an older druid of some sort nearby. Tell me your plans, and I will arrange any necessary mentor or other resource.
...
You grew up in a small village surrounded by an unexplored forest. There are wild animals and worse in the forest, and you have trained with at least one simple weapon. For this reason, your character can use your choice of a spear, short bow or short sword, regardless of character class. (You must choose one. Your character cannot use more than one of them unless both are allowed to his or her class.)


It just sounds.... needlessly contrived to do what you want.

Well, first of all, you don't know all that I want, or all that I gave them, or all that I did. You have read a few excerpts from a 4-page document, chosen only to show the point of custom creations. But you didn't assume that you don't have full knowledge of the world; instead, you assumed that anything you don't know about must have been stupid. This assumption is unfair, unjustified, and false-to-fact.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-31, 08:59 PM
I'm not an idiot. If they see them in sunlight, of course they could tell the big one from the little one, and would get clearer descriptions. But in a dungeon, are those shadowy shapes four feet tall and forty feet away, or eight feet tall and eighty feet away? And how much detail about the shape of a mouth would you expect? The introduction isn't a hard and fast rule; it's a deliberately worst case scenario intended to make clear to the players that they won't automatically identify everything at once.

None of my players complained about this rule, or about how I ran the game.



Agreed. But since I never said that the goal was to "get around metagaming," and the goal in fact was not to "get around metagaming," this guess about my motives is irrelevant.

The goal was to provide a world of mystery and the unknown, and allow the old-school experience of learning about the world. All my players enjoyed it, and although it ended two years ago, I've gotten requests to continue it as recently as last week.

You're the second person to voice disapprove of a game about which you know very little, while all the people who played it seemed to approve.



I actually considered these issues. The introduction included a lot of things that had nothing to do with the topic of custom creations, and so I didn't discuss it above. For instance:


Your character is way behind the average starting D&D character in knowledge of the world. I am making up for that by giving each PC one 3E Feat (see below), and one unusual starting item you would normally not have at the start of a game. This item must be justified by the character, and must be acceptable to me. For instance, a Wizard could start the game with a familiar. A Bard could have a well-made harp. Somebody with Animal Training could have a trained dog already (but not a horse or bird of prey.) A fighter might have a boomerang as one weapon. Come up with something fun, useful, and unusual, but not outrageous. It won’t be a magic item, but it could be something rare. [It is not armor. Your village can produce leather, studded leather, brigandine, or scale armor, but not chain or plate.]
...
I repeat – ask for exceptions to these rules. I want you to play what you want, and to have an unusual character. For instance, if you have a character idea that can’t work if you grew up in a small village, talk to me, and we’ll try to make it fit in – but it might mean that you miss the first half of the first adventure. If you have some cool idea for something your character wants to start off with, let’s discuss it. I might say no, or have it replace the Feat or the unusual item, or just grant the exception.



What's the point of making up nonsense about something when you don't have complete information?

When you live surrounded by a haunted forest, you don't just wake up as a fighter; it's one of the things you learn. In fact, the introduction included the following:


It will be possible for your character to get started within the village, so if you wish to be, for instance, a druid, there will be an older druid of some sort nearby. Tell me your plans, and I will arrange any necessary mentor or other resource.
...
You grew up in a small village surrounded by an unexplored forest. There are wild animals and worse in the forest, and you have trained with at least one simple weapon. For this reason, your character can use your choice of a spear, short bow or short sword, regardless of character class. (You must choose one. Your character cannot use more than one of them unless both are allowed to his or her class.)



Well, first of all, you don't know all that I want, or all that I gave them, or all that I did. You have read a few excerpts from a 4-page document, chosen only to show the point of custom creations. But you didn't assume that you don't have full knowledge of the world; instead, you assumed that anything you don't know about must have been stupid. This assumption is unfair, unjustified, and false-to-fact.

Woah hold on. No need to get testy. I mixed up you and FreddyNoNose. (My kiddo was also distracting me. Life with kids, etc)

No beef here. Do what makes your players happy first and foremost. If they're signed on to knowing nothing about the world, coolio.

I had another reply saying that it would be worth it to prevent metagaming (more or less) and that seemed like a bit much.

TL;DR
I'm an idiot, these comments don't apply to you. I got confused. My bad.

Jay R
2017-07-31, 09:35 PM
Woah hold on. No need to get testy. I mixed up you and FreddyNoNose. (My kiddo was also distracting me. Life with kids, etc)

No beef here. Do what makes your players happy first and foremost. If they're signed on to knowing nothing about the world, coolio.

I had another reply saying that it would be worth it to prevent metagaming (more or less) and that seemed like a bit much.

TL;DR
I'm an idiot, these comments don't apply to you. I got confused. My bad.

Cool. We had a misunderstanding, and we worked it out by honestly responding to each other. Based on what you just said, I withdraw my comments. Perfect. That's what internet discussions do at their finest, and it's actually pretty uncommon.

Guizonde
2017-07-31, 10:08 PM
1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates? This is a weird question for me, but some players(often, but not always the optimizing roll players) think (''demand'') that before the game even starts that the DM must give all the players full write ups of any custom creations.


in my homebrew universe, no, with exceptions. a few are weapons: the "rifle", which has become by tradition THE modular pain-inducing weapon platform of the game. you want a rifle that spews a wall o' bullets? done deal. you want a rifle that is a silenced long-range murder machine? yup, simply not the same options as the first. the rifle is the most random of all our weapons, and yet is one of our starting items. why? because players get attached to their weapons. i've seen so far in 4.5 campaigns 7 different rifles, none which had the exact same loadouts. all were modified from the stock loadout. a few loadouts were modded by subsequent dms, but as long as it looks like an m14 by the end of the day, it's a "rifle".


2.Do Players all ways get full Rule Write Ups of Custom Creations This is related to question one. A lot of players seem to think that ''the player'' should know everything ''in the rules'', and they define ''the rules'' as ''whatever they want to know at any moment''. So they think the players should be given the full rules write up text of any custom creation, just like it would be in a rule book. The player does not know when or where in the game it will be used, but they demand to have all the information.

bull. the player gets the rules when they survive the campaign, because the player has a chance to become the next dm. until then, it's "try, die, try again". if we knew exactly what tricks the new dm developped, we'd be too close to the creation and balance of our game to make it seem balanced. no, we enjoy the added difficulty, and we love our dm for throwing us curve balls once in a while. i've got great stories about a few of those, too. i just feel i'm too tired to tell them right now without a serious wall of text.


3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations? This really comes only from the Hostile Adversarial Roll Players. They want to ''check the DM'' and make sure the DM is following the rules and playing right (in their view). And if they, and the other players, don't like something, they think they should be able to veto it.


in my universe, the dm adds to the current world. ie, he adds rules, all he does is inject new things into our (otherwise rapidly stale) universe. change is good, unless it concerns tried and true mechanics. if it involves patching bugs, fine (automatic weapons, i'm looking at you). if it involves something we've grown to love and balance in 4 years of play, not so.


4.How much Custom Creations is too much?


changing dice mechanics is too much. that's about it for me, but then again i play in a homebrew from the ground up with 5 heads taking turns adding to the world with their own inspiration. when i think back to 5 years ago, i'd've never dreamt of my idea becoming what canon it has created. i'm thankful for that, because thanks to player and dm input, we've gained about 40% of our current game. were i playing something less solid, it'd be another answer.

hope this helps.

Earthwalker
2017-08-01, 04:35 AM
1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates?
2.Do Players all ways get full Rule Write Ups of Custom Creations
3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations?
4.How much Custom Creations is too much?


1. No
2. No
3. No
4. I will only know it when I see it.

Now all that been said I have some more things to add.
First and most importantly, it’s possible to create mystery in a game without changing a single rule. I don’t think I have played a system where it is impossible not to have mystery. (I mean there might be some systems where the player can create a character whose entire existence is automatically knowing mysteries, if there is I have never played that system)

As with all things where rules are changed, are you sure you are playing the right system. Instead of changing all the rules of the system you are using to create mysteries, is there not a better system to do what you want. If the system has loads of rules that automatically solve the mysteries you are trying to create, use another system.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-01, 05:57 AM
Well, I like the more ''the characters know nothing'' myself. I want player and character knowledge to come from game play. Too many players don't want to just 'know' about the setting: they want to be super experts on the setting. And they use their knowledge to prevent the adventure, encounters or any type of experience from happening. So their character just walks around.
Then don't play with those players. I've never met one of those, ever, in my 15+ years of gaming, with the exception of a few 10-year-olds who found the game too spooky for their liking. (They were fine with adventure once I swapped systems, though.)



A good half the point of Custom Creations is to add mystery and wonder back into the game. Like the first time a new player encounters say a Rust Monster is priceless...a memory that they will remember forever. But you only get it once. Playing the game for even a short while and you will encounter and know all the common, iconic things in the game..again and again and again. And the ''sigh, whatever I do X to defeat or over come Y...again'' gets very boring.

There is a difference between your first time fighting a thing that your character wouldn't know about, and having a dodgy GM not tell you anything about these "vaguely humanoid critters that have been attacking villages since time immemorial."



But, on the other hand, ''knowing common stuff'' is a bit pointless. So I let players know this type of stuff no problem. It often does not matter. The players can read the handout 100 times were it says ''the Ice Elves of Northwatch are a good, honorable and noble race of elves''. They will still murderhobo every elf they meet to get more experience and loot. And even if they get to meet the Ice Elf King, they won't even try to role play like good, honorable and noble royal guests...they are going to act like five year olds no matter what.

Your experience is not the only one. And very rare. I don't know where you're finding players that are literal manchildren, but stop recruiting from there.

And be sure to set expectations. If the expectation is that they won't murderhobo, and they do, just stop everything and address it immediately. If it continues, send everyone home. This won't need to happen more than once or twice before the message os received, even to stupid teenaged boys.



And it does get crazy with the 'old' stuff the players ''think'' they know. Like a couple weeks ago I had a PC group that was being escorted through some woods by some elves. At night the elves cut down a tree to make a fire. Two players really flipped out over this demanding that ''elves would never, ever cut down a live tree''. In their interpretation of elves, they think they would never do that. They agreed that elves can hunt for food, but can't cut down trees....

Congrats. A stereotype was shattered before their very eyes. Turns out elves are more complex beings than they believed. Inform them of such and move on. Or, in a custom setting, you decide anyways.


As I've said before, if I get told that I don't know what an orc is after living in a village that in the backstory (if any) was pillaged by orcs, or I don't know what some other common-pest monsters are at all, without a VERY good reason, I will begin to ask increasingly stupid questions. For example:

Gm: the man leads you into a tavern an-
Me: Do I know what a tavern is?
Gm: Yes. You do. Anyways, he sits you down at a table-
Me: I'm worried by this large wooden disc. Do I know what it is?

Etc. Because denying me perfectly reasonable information is exactly as stupid as if I didn't know what a tavern or a table are.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-01, 06:21 AM
Gm: the man leads you into a tavern an-
Me: Do I know what a tavern is?
Gm: Yes. You do. Anyways, he sits you down at a table-
Me: I'm worried by this large wooden disc. Do I know what it is?

Etc. Because denying me perfectly reasonable information is exactly as stupid as if I didn't know what a tavern or a table are.

Well, no that is just silly.

Knowing a bit of common knowledge about a monster is fine, but most players want to go for the crazy exploit and know everything, or worse just the combat stuff. 3E also has the horrible player agency problem where the players demand everything their character knows to be absolute fact.

A character can know a monster is X, but not know the full rules write up and description of the monster.

Though, to the smart player above....my answer would be ''no you don't know what a tavern is, or what a table is, just sit back and relax. We will let you know if you need to roll a dice for something." LOL

Earthwalker
2017-08-01, 07:15 AM
Knowing a bit of common knowledge about a monster is fine, but most players want to go for the crazy exploit and know everything, or worse just the combat stuff. 3E also has the horrible player agency problem where the players demand everything their character knows to be absolute fact.
A character can know a monster is X, but not know the full rules write up and description of the monster.


Again I am going back to know the system and choose a system for what works for the game you want to play.

Jay_R said he used 2e for his game, which made sense as 2e didn’t have all the rules for finding out information that 3e does.

In 3e you have knowledge skills for example that if you get a successful result you find useful information about a creature (this is even terms as game information from the stat block) the better you roll the more information you get.

Now this is how the skill works. It appears to me that it’s in the game so players can gain information about monsters and then use said information for the combat minigame. (If I am wrong I apologize I don’t play 3.e and have not in a while)

If I was a 3e player and got invited to a 3e game I would expect to be playing 3e (unless I was told up front what isn’t used) so to be invited to the game but at a later stage told oh I don’t like knowledge skills as I like mystery I would feel cheated.

If you want to play a 2e game, play a 2e game. Don’t advertise 3e and then change it all around.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-01, 07:44 AM
Well, no that is just silly.

Knowing a bit of common knowledge about a monster is fine, but most players want to go for the crazy exploit and know everything, or worse just the combat stuff. 3E also has the horrible player agency problem where the players demand everything their character knows to be absolute fact.

A character can know a monster is X, but not know the full rules write up and description of the monster.

Though, to the smart player above....my answer would be ''no you don't know what a tavern is, or what a table is, just sit back and relax. We will let you know if you need to roll a dice for something." LOL

I would respond to that last bit with "do I know what a dice is?" And my questions would continue. Can't exactly stop me from asking questions.

Also "most" players. Include those quotes there, because your experiences are in the rare minority. As I've said before, the kind of player who demands perfect and ultimate constant knowledge has never graced my table in 15+ years of gaming with many groups. Your potrayal is either wildly exaggerated, or your experiences are highly anomalous.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-01, 07:44 AM
Jay_R said he used 2e for his game, which made sense as 2e didn’t have all the rules for finding out information that 3e does.


2E is great and I still use it myself.

And for good players I don't have any problems changing 3E around to make it better and more 2E like.

And for the 'other' players I don't have any problem giving them the lame 3X style ''know all the combatz stuffz about the monster, so they can kill, loot repeat'' again. I really like the later Monster Manuals with the lame Lore in them, and I use them as examples for the lame lore of anything else. And as it's ''the 3X player agency wacky interoperation of the Rules'', players love it and have no complaints. The players get their combat exploits, or so they think, and then they have the ''real fun'' when they encounter the monster.

And the good players that role play, pay attention and otherwise play the game, get tons and tons and tons of more information.

Earthwalker
2017-08-01, 08:11 AM
2E is great and I still use it myself.
And for good players I don't have any problems changing 3E around to make it better and more 2E like.
And for the 'other' players I don't have any problem giving them the lame 3X style ''know all the combatz stuffz about the monster, so they can kill, loot repeat'' again. I really like the later Monster Manuals with the lame Lore in them, and I use them as examples for the lame lore of anything else. And as it's ''the 3X player agency wacky interoperation of the Rules'', players love it and have no complaints. The players get their combat exploits, or so they think, and then they have the ''real fun'' when they encounter the monster.
And the good players that role play, pay attention and otherwise play the game, get tons and tons and tons of more information.

Honestly the way this is phrased it seems to be that.

You want to run a 2e style game.
You want to run it with players that like 2e.
You dislike 3e (calling it lame) and the changes it made to how players gain knowledge (with having skills and dice rolls)


Yet for reasons I don’t understand
You run 3e games, with 3e players and expect them to be 2e players. Then call people derogatory terms for thinking that playing a 3e game should be like playing 3e.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-08-01, 08:43 AM
Honestly the way this is phrased it seems to be that.

You want to run a 2e style game.
You want to run it with players that like 2e.
You dislike 3e (calling it lame) and the changes it made to how players gain knowledge (with having skills and dice rolls)


Yet for reasons I don’t understand
You run 3e games, with 3e players and expect them to be 2e players. Then call people derogatory terms for thinking that playing a 3e game should be like playing 3e.

I've seen this (with 2e played using 5e rules). There's a saying in the programming world: "You can write FORTRAN in any language." It's not a compliment, either. I find one of the more annoying things a DM can do (to me, at least) is play one game with the mindset of a different one. Different editions of D&D are separate games and even though many things share a legacy, they're different and should play differently. They are conducive to different play styles. What works in one doesn't necessarily work in another. </rant>

On topic:

I use lots of custom things (templates, races, abilities, spells, items) that players may or may not have access to. Not rules per se, but things that use existing rules to new effect. They certainly don't have access to all of them at character creation. Spells are the big thing--there are many spells that can be cast that players don't have access to. In return, PCs can learn a much wider array of spells than NPCs.

Players only get the rule text if they gain access to the custom creation. PC/NPC transparency is absolutely not in force.

I am open to players creating stuff with my buy-in, but don't ask for their permission or sign-off on my custom stuff.

How much is too much? When it feels like you're playing another game. I'm in a custom setting, so almost everything is customized. None of the races' fluff is the same (but the mechanics mostly are because I'm lazy). For example, racial alignment (and alignment in general) doesn't exist. Each goblin may or may not be evil.

DigoDragon
2017-08-01, 08:45 AM
The GM in the D&D game I'm playing in seems to hate the published magical weapons and armor in the DMG with a passion. All armor and weapons we get are custom loot we find after battle encounters. He'll let us take the item creation feats if we want to make the "pedestrian" equipment in the DMG, but he fights us if we raise the money to commission a wizard to say, enchant a masterwork chainshirt to become a +1 chainshirt (he's commented that it's a very powerful item and should require questing and role play to get). So basically the GM creates custom armor and weapons for us every time the loot tables rolls up something. We cannot buy or make custom loot, only find it or trade for it at his special "Want it/Need It" shop.

The Want It/Need It shop is run by some kind of goddess. She lets us trade unusual things, like displacer beast tentacles and unicorn scat, for custom creations. We can't specify abilities when we trade. We only can tell her an idea of what we'd like, and then the GM makes something. I recently traded a young green dragon's forearm, asking for something to improve my defense (because I had not had an AC increase since level 1. My character is currently level 7). What the GM gave me was a bear helmet that gives me Scent, Darkvision, +1 Natural Armor, 3/Week Barbarian Rage (but without the AC penalty) and 3/Week Druid's shapechange ability (any medium or large animal only). Uh... sure. I guess it's not as powerful as that +1 chainshirt I wanted, but I'll accept this as a "consolation" prize. :smallbiggrin:

(the amusement comes later when I use this helmet to chew through his encounters like wet paper and he starts complaining that I'm getting OP. Well gee, I wonder why). :3


So yeah, that's how custom creations are handled in our current campaign.

Martin Greywolf
2017-08-01, 09:45 AM
When you come down to it, all TTRPG gaming comes down to trust among the people at the table - DM trusts that his players won't derail his campaign with utter stupidity and/or random murderhoboing the bystanders, players trust that DM will not throw encounter after encounter at them with each individual one being just "rocks fall, everyone dies", only with more math.

So, what about dem custom creations? There are three general types of them:

1) Just like vanilla

These are just different things that are little different from the published material. Take a Fighter, add some social skills and call it a Knight, for example. These don't really violate trust at all.

2) Breaks the soft rules

These break the rules, but not really. They break the rules or preconceptions that the characters themselves or players have, like orcs are always chaotic evil, or, to use Naruto as an example, Susano-o is the perfect defence. These are fine as long as you don't toss them at your players during every single encounter, and you can respond to indigation with "Yah, your characters are pretty shocked too, and hurt to boot. No, seriously, there are, like, 20 arrows in your chest."

3) Breaks the hard rules

This one is the real problem. It breaks something in the rules that is established in a meta sense. A good example of this is being able to take two actions per turn, or use Teleport whenever you please, action order be damned.

The thing about this is that it can work, but it HAS to be a big deal, and treated as such. A major villain having it is fine, giving it to every elite mook isn't, unless it's the theme of campaign or something. These also work best with foreshadowing.

An example is Alien Rulers from XCOM 2 being able to take an action after every action you take, as opposed to just once per turn. They can **** all over your squad if you aren't prepared for them, but most players agree that they are awesome addition. There are also only three of them and die permanently, and you first have to go through a long mission that builds them up.

TTRPGs and characters

Here's a final point: TTRPGs are games about the characters the players play, therefore a player should have access to all information a character has access to. If I create a class for knight, then the player should know that there are knights around and also know what the class does - not necessarily all the bonuses, but a decent grasp of what he can expect. There are some exceptions to this, but they are usually a result of a very unusual game premise, and are stated at the start of the game.

How much custom creations they will have access to depends on DM entirely, but there's an important caveat to this - custom creations shouldn't completely change the feel of the game. If I want to play some Naruto, and everyone suddenly has 20 magic items, well, that's a problem. It's a bit like reading a Harry Potter book, and then suddenly, Queen of England brings in an SAS taskforce to shut down Voldemort - I read a fic like that and liked it, but if you expect a magical romp and get this dropped on you, you'll likely stop right there.

Drynwyn
2017-08-01, 01:29 PM
The answer to all of these is "it depends", in some capacity. More specifically:

1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates?

No, but if it's not an active secret or otherwise genuinely restricted (as opposed to merely unusual) knowledge in the setting, the players should probably know about it. After all, your character creation decisions are made by the player, even though the character wouldn't necessarily get to discreetly choose-
for example- what spells were available for him to learn during his apprenticeship. If it is an active secret, you should probably set it up so the players can take advantage of it after they learn about it. In some systems that's easy. In other systems, like 3.5, with highly locked-in character development, that can require careful thought. The gist of it is, "enemies-only" abilities, whether literally enemy-only or simply de facto enemy-only, tend to be frustrating, especially when powerful or unique.

2. Do players always get full rule write-ups of Custom Creations?
Not necesarilly. But, if you refuse to give your players exact rules information about how the thing that they're fighting works, you had damn well better play the enemies as though they don't necessarily have full information about how the players abilities work. After all, even though the players (potentially) know how every spell and ability in the book works, the characters don't necessarily know them, so neither should their enemies. The key here is that the players should feel like they're playing by the same rules as their enemies. The resource distribution doesn't have to be fair, and neither does anything else- but if players feel like their enemies don't have to play by the same rules they do, they quickly lose the feeling of agency.

3. Do players get to approve Custom Creations?
It depends on the game. Burning Wheel, a personal favorite, specifically calls on the GM to discuss changes and additions to the rules with their players. But Burning Wheel makes some very significant changes to the role of the GM, so it's not necessarily transferable to other games. More generally, I'd say they don't, but if a custom creation is going to be important or central to the game, being a good host obligates you to give players a general idea of how that creation works, or to specifically tell them that you're keeping central rules a secret from them, but trust me, it'll be fun.

Have a cake analogy for why that's the case:

If I invite you over for cake, and we eat cake, that's good.

If I invite you over for "a surprise desert- trust me, it'll be great" and we eat cake, that's also good (though it should probably be a pretty special cake to justify keeping it a secret.)

But if I invite you over for cake, and the cake is merely a thin shell disguising a chocolate mousse- first, that's some really freakin' impressive baking. But more importantly, I may enjoy it, but if I was expecting cake I might also be quite disappointed. And if I don't like mousse, I might be upset!

If you set up a game, the game should contain what you says it contains, even if some of the contents are labelled as "mysterious things!".

4. How many Custom Creations is too many?
This is a lot like 3. There's no point at which it's definitely too much, but what they're in for should be clear to your players out of respect for their time investment.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-08-01, 02:27 PM
1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates?
2. Do players always get full rule write-ups of Custom Creations?
These are kind of the same question, methinks, and the answer is that it depends on the thing. Most homebrew content I make is either aimed at players (class rewrites for 3.5, custom stuff they've requested, etc), or monsters I've invented at some point the week before the session for those specific encounters. So I can't exactly hand them a list of every custom monster even if I wanted to, but if they ask later I'll probably share. I trust my players not to metagame too much, and I want to show off the stuff I made :smalltongue:

In general, I don't think the game needs to be 100% PC/NPC transparent, but it does need to make sense. If the NPC wizard was able to raise an army of undead via sacrifice and ritual, the players should be able to learn to do the same thing, if they get their hands on his notes. If the NPC fighter has a funky combat style, they should be able to learn it too, if they can find the master who trained her. They might not get the exact same write-up, it'll probably be balanced differently for PCs vs NPCs, but "only person X can do this" is a pretty poor justification.

And if a player has the thing on their character sheet, than yeah, they should know how their class/spell/item/whatever works, in however much full detail is needed for the system to function. Not only is it unfair to do otherwise, the DM has way too much work to do as it is without having to keep track of half your characters' mechanics for you.


3. Do players get to approve Custom Creations?
Not individually, but the overall concept, perhaps. Certainly there needs to be trust if you're homebrewing significant amounts of significantly new stuff. If the campaign is going to lean heavily on your own creations, you should make that clear ahead of time-- not so much to forestall this hypothetical "waaah, you're not sticking to the rules, you're cheeeaaating" player that gets conjured up in every discussion of this sort of thing, but as a warning and a sort of preemptive apology-- "hey, I'm using some new stuff, so please bear with me." Not everyone is going to want to play in a game where all the classes and monsters and spells and all are different, because...


4. How many Custom Creations is too many?
The game might not stop being fun, but it might stop feeling like the original system. "Let's play D&D" and "let's play my homebrew system" are two different invitations, and people who might accept one might well reject the other.

Quertus
2017-08-01, 10:49 PM
This stance doesn't fix the incongruity of residents of a world knowing nothing about it.

It would be as strange as a story about suburban teenagers where they've never seen a schoolbus or end up in a zoo totally flabbergasted by all the strange, unknown creatures they've never seen before. (Assuming, obviously, they really are just elephants and usual zoo life)

I did have a co-worker once who was very concerned about the "large cat-sized rats" she saw. A bit of thought later, I asked her if she knew what possums were. She looked perplexed.

Still, for the whole party to be ignorant of the environment requires some heavy-handed setup or some ridiculous odds.


Well, I like the more ''the characters know nothing'' myself. I want player and character knowledge to come from game play. Too many players don't want to just 'know' about the setting: they want to be super experts on the setting. And they use their knowledge to prevent the adventure, encounters or any type of experience from happening. So their character just walks around.

I mean, the reason my signature character Quertus is a worlds-famous author is because be goes around testing everything he encounters, and records his findings. He develops custom spells to facilitate this process. Quertus is bloody dedicated to ignorance! I'd contend that he's what Expert level ignorance looks like.


A good half the point of Custom Creations is to add mystery and wonder back into the game. Like the first time a new player encounters say a Rust Monster is priceless...a memory that they will remember forever. But you only get it once. Playing the game for even a short while and you will encounter and know all the common, iconic things in the game..again and again and again. And the ''sigh, whatever I do X to defeat or over come Y...again'' gets very boring.

Learning about werewolves from the local sage / crazy person / wise woman / village idiot for the umpteenth time is boring. Doing so promoted me to carefully track who trained whom, what they knew, etc, so I never had to sit through that again.

There is a balance between knowledge and ignorance. Different games place that balance point at different places. 3e assumes characters are skilled - too skilled for both your and my tastes. 2e assumes characters are morons - too stupid for my tastes.

But, yes, first time encounters are priceless.

So, my first campaign, been playing for long enough for the party to reach low teens in level IIRC. Players commit the cardinal sin of splitting the party.

The new player - very smart, but has never played pen & paper RPGs before - stumbles upon a room of artifacts. I carefully describe the contents. The other players go silent as I describe the black orb floating in the middle of the room. You can cut the tension with a knife when the new player becomes fascinated with this particular object, asking about its composition, what's holding it up, etc. I maintain my best poker face, asking very neutral questions about the exact details of what the character is doing, and providing the best answers to his inquiries that I can.

Eventually, his data collection (un)successful, he declares he is taking the orb with him. You could hear a pin drop as I ask him how he is taking it with him. The new player explains that he unclasps his cloak, throws it over the floating sphere, gathers up the corners, and drags it along behind him.

The more experienced rest of the party breath a collective sigh of relief. I explain that the cloak settles to the ground, a perfectly round hole in the middle of it.

And that is how one player in my first ever campaign learned of the Sphere of Annihilation.

Knaight
2017-08-02, 12:52 AM
The game might not stop being fun, but it might stop feeling like the original system. "Let's play D&D" and "let's play my homebrew system" are two different invitations, and people who might accept one might well reject the other.

This is a fairly key point - the extent to which one changes the system is highly system specific. If I'm playing Burning Wheel, I expect it to be pretty close to by the book Burning Wheel. If someone's busting out Fudge, I don't expect it to bear that much mechanical resemblance to other Fudge games, because that sort of dramatic customization is pretty much the central ethos of the system. D&D goes across a pretty wide range depending on edition, and that makes the central questions of the thread edition dependent. There's a few constants (custom monsters are totally fine as a general class, although implementations can be bad), but the extent to which the rules are rules as opposed to rough guidelines varies.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-02, 07:27 AM
I did have a co-worker once who was very concerned about the "large cat-sized rats" she saw. A bit of thought later, I asked her if she knew what possums were. She looked perplexed.

Still, for the whole party to be ignorant of the environment requires some heavy-handed setup or some ridiculous odds.

I'm fine with players knowing..or thinking they know whatever they want to. I even believe in the ''reverse metagaming'' where if the player knows X, I'm fine with the character also knowing X.

And it's loads of fun, even with just real world animals in a game. Like a player have a character running from a constructor snake or a bear and will have the character climb a tree and they will say ''ah, the animal can't get me now!''. And then you have all the stuff in the game rules that they, sort of remember too....




I mean, the reason my signature character Quertus is a worlds-famous author is because be goes around testing everything he encounters, and records his findings. He develops custom spells to facilitate this process. Quertus is bloody dedicated to ignorance! I'd contend that he's what Expert level ignorance looks like.

It is impossible to even fake the idea that a character is super smart, other then the ''sigh, stop the game, DM tell me what my character knows''. I know a lot of gamers ''love'' to play the game this way, but to me it's just annoying.

Worse, you can't have a player ''fake being an all knowing expert'' just by having the DM tell them a sentence or two. So even if you do it this way, there will be massive holes in the character and player knowledge. Unless you really do want to stop the game and really do nothing for the next several hours other then ''X 101 everything you wanted to know about x''.

So I take the other route in my games: your character knows next to nothing (but does know anything the players knows). Both the player and character will learn things Slowly, through game play. You won't be penalized outside the game if you ''don't know something'', though sure the character is going to have wacky, fun encounters and adventures based around lack of knowledge...but that is part of the fun of the game.

Also, thought it's rare, I'm more then happy to give a good player that wants to play an 'expert type' handouts and information. Like during the game the character might read a book about X, and then later I'd e-mail them the ''cliff notes'' of what the character read. Then come the next game the player is free to use that information.

A LOT of movies and TV shows do the ''Clueless character'' to great effect, and I think it is worth emulating. Harry Potter is a great example, the poor guy is clueless, even after several books/movies. But it does nicely let the author/writer do the ''oh a portkey is.....''. Even shows where ''everyone is a super highly trained expert'', like Star Trek, has do have the silly thing where Once an Episode a ''super highly trained Starfleet expert'' who should know, will stop and ask ''oh, what is X?'', just so another character can explain it to the viewers/audience. Just think of the famous time on ST:TNG Disaster when Consular Troi did not know what a ''core breech'' was and had to have others explain to her ''it means the ship will explode''.


This is a fairly key point - the extent to which one changes the system is highly system specific. D&D goes across a pretty wide range depending on edition, and that makes the central questions of the thread edition dependent. There's a few constants (custom monsters are totally fine as a general class, although implementations can be bad), but the extent to which the rules are rules as opposed to rough guidelines varies.

Well, mostly I stick to ''theme '' things. The Demon Cultists have a Demon Thug class, some demonic spells and demonic items. Really just adding to what is there. And I do love the more simple items, like Grease Darts(oh, they explode and cover a 5 foot square) that the Cult of Jubilex has.

Quertus
2017-08-02, 08:02 AM
Worse, you can't have a player ''fake being an all knowing expert'' just by having the DM tell them a sentence or two. So even if you do it this way, there will be massive holes in the character and player knowledge. Unless you really do want to stop the game and really do nothing for the next several hours other then ''X 101 everything you wanted to know about x''.

IME, with a competent player and a skilled GM who knows how to work with others rather than being a gotcha GM, this isn't a problem. Making a character come off as knowledgeable even when the player isn't is a solved problem.


A LOT of movies and TV shows do the ''Clueless character'' to great effect, and I think it is worth emulating. Harry Potter is a great example, the poor guy is clueless, even after several books/movies. But it does nicely let the author/writer do the ''oh a portkey is.....''. Even shows where ''everyone is a super highly trained expert'', like Star Trek, has do have the silly thing where Once an Episode a ''super highly trained Starfleet expert'' who should know, will stop and ask ''oh, what is X?'', just so another character can explain it to the viewers/audience. Just think of the famous time on ST:TNG Disaster when Consular Troi did not know what a ''core breech'' was and had to have others explain to her ''it means the ship will explode''.

These are examples of ignorance done poorly, or, in the case of Harry Potter (whom I was actually thinking about when I was talking about ignorance) an example of beginner level ignorance. Harry is beginner level ignorant because he is not self aware enough to act upon his ignorance, and because he stays ignorant; Quertus represents expert level ignorance, because he is fully cognizant of his ignorance and the disadvantages thereof, and he does everything in his considerable power both to compensate, and to remedy the situation.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-02, 12:16 PM
IME, with a competent player and a skilled GM who knows how to work with others rather than being a gotcha GM, this isn't a problem. Making a character come off as knowledgeable even when the player isn't is a solved problem..

Well, maybe you can give an example. Lets say the group, along with the know it all expert character encounter the DM's new Custom Race: the Swamp Orcs. So, how does this skilled DM give the player and character ''all'' the information about the race.

Unless you stop the game and do nothing but ''DM tells player stuff'' for like a couple hours, you really can't have a player or character ''know'' all about a topic.

Or are you talking about the lame ''faking it '' with lots of ''do overs''. So like:

Player of Super Expert Character: "I make a fire and invite my new Swamp orc buddies to eat some cooked meat."
DM-"Um, wait stop, your character knows swamp orcs are vegetarians and find eating meat offensive. Do over."
Player of Super Expert Character: "Oh, um, I make a fire and invite my new Swamp orc buddies to eat some vegetables."

Or just the endless slow the game down to a crawl questions:

Player-"Um, DM who is the main swamp orc god?"
DM-"Samprattor"
Player-"Quarktor says ''bless you in the name of Samprattor!''
DM-Swamp orc says "We thank you and offer you a mud path."
Player-"Ok, DM, what is a 'mud path' ?"
DM-"A mud path is..."

I see both as bad game play.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-08-02, 12:40 PM
Unless you stop the game and do nothing but ''DM tells player stuff'' for like a couple hours, you really can't have a player or character ''know'' all about a topic.
"A couple hours?" How much detail are you putting into these things? A paragraph's worth (sometimes put into the character's mouth, with permission) is usually plenty. For example:

"These are swamp orcs; unlike their cousins, they're vegetarian, though no less ferocious. They have a strong emphasis on tight-knit family groups, usually dominated by an older matriarch, who is also in charge of forging their weapons. They worship most of the same orcish gods, who they see as a family, but place less emphasis on Gruumish and more on his mother, Samprattor. You would be familiar with their language and basic rites-- probably the most important right now is the 'mud path,' a challenge of valor newcomers have to undergo to prove their worth to the tribe."

Combine that with a bit of deliberate muddying when you don't have specifics-- "I hail them using the traditional greeting, and tell them that I'm here on a quest from their god"-- and you're fine.

Tinkerer
2017-08-02, 12:42 PM
Well, maybe you can give an example. Lets say the group, along with the know it all expert character encounter the DM's new Custom Race: the Swamp Orcs. So, how does this skilled DM give the player and character ''all'' the information about the race.

Unless you stop the game and do nothing but ''DM tells player stuff'' for like a couple hours, you really can't have a player or character ''know'' all about a topic.

Or are you talking about the lame ''faking it '' with lots of ''do overs''. So like:

Player of Super Expert Character: "I make a fire and invite my new Swamp orc buddies to eat some cooked meat."
DM-"Um, wait stop, your character knows swamp orcs are vegetarians and find eating meat offensive. Do over."
Player of Super Expert Character: "Oh, um, I make a fire and invite my new Swamp orc buddies to eat some vegetables."

Or just the endless slow the game down to a crawl questions:

Player-"Um, DM who is the main swamp orc god?"
DM-"Samprattor"
Player-"Quarktor says ''bless you in the name of Samprattor!''
DM-Swamp orc says "We thank you and offer you a mud path."
Player-"Ok, DM, what is a 'mud path' ?"
DM-"A mud path is..."

I see both as bad game play.

That sounds more like a bad player than a bad GM to me. It takes a certain amount of practice to play a know it all effectively, like in the first example rather than saying "I invite my Swamp Orc Buddies to eat some cooked meat." when he doesn't know what they eat a know it all should be saying:

Player "I invite my Swamp Orc Buddies to a meal of their local cuisine."
GM "Okay you make up a sumptuous meal of roots and tubers, the preferred meal of this tribe".

On rare, rare occasion you may need a do-over or question but I haven't really found it happening anymore with a know it all than with a environmental warrior or a scientific mage.

Plus if it's a short write up of the species give the player a copy. I've often had luck using the Sally method where the player comes up with all sorts of niggling little details of the local culture. Of course this method involves a fair amount of GM/player trust and co-operation.

Jay R
2017-08-02, 12:50 PM
Or are you talking about the lame ''faking it '' with lots of ''do overs''. So like:

Player of Super Expert Character: "I make a fire and invite my new Swamp orc buddies to eat some cooked meat."
DM-"Um, wait stop, your character knows swamp orcs are vegetarians and find eating meat offensive. Do over."
Player of Super Expert Character: "Oh, um, I make a fire and invite my new Swamp orc buddies to eat some vegetables."

Or just the endless slow the game down to a crawl questions:

Player-"Um, DM who is the main swamp orc god?"
DM-"Samprattor"
Player-"Quarktor says ''bless you in the name of Samprattor!''
DM-Swamp orc says "We thank you and offer you a mud path."
Player-"Ok, DM, what is a 'mud path' ?"
DM-"A mud path is..."

I see both as bad game play.

Of course they are. You made them up for that purpose. These are excellent examples of the problems created by an incompetent player and an unskilled gotcha GM, who were both creating situations that required information that the player didn't know. He specifically said, "IME, with a competent player and a skilled GM who knows how to work with others rather than being a gotcha GM."

But suppose the skilled, non-gotcha GM didn't expect the player to provide fluff information that he doesn't know, and the competent player didn't make up unnecessary details that he doesn't know.

Player: Using his knowledge of their culture, Quarktor prepares his camp to receive them properly.
DM: OK. He prepares their favorite vegetarian dish, and blesses them in the name of their god. They respond with a traditional blessing of their people. At the end of the evening they have accepted Quarktor as a cultured and respected friend.

Cluedrew
2017-08-02, 06:21 PM
I have mostly the same things to say as other people, including such that it depends on the system, but I'm going to assume something rules heavy. I have one that might stand out.

3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations?

If you want it to be a surprise or mystery you probably don't want to show it to them. Still at the same time ask yourself, would they approve it? If not you might want to ask yourself why they wouldn't. You might have to fix some things.

Jay R
2017-08-02, 08:26 PM
One more important nuance needs to be discussed.


3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations?

I don't want or need to approve each specific GM choice, and doing so would prevent certain fun surprises during a game. So, no, players should not get to approve custom creations on the individual level. But, much more importantly, we do get to approve of the GM's judgment as a whole, by deciding whether or not to join the game.

Of my most recent GMs, I have complete faith in Brian's judgment in custom creations. I have general but not complete faith that if one of Michael's creations causes a problem, he will address it fairly. Rob could easily make a mistake in judgment, but he's so fun to play with that I would accept that to play in his game. Dirk makes mistakes in judgment occasionally, and I've been frustrated by them occasionally, but I will play in his game anyway, because his military knowledge and character development more than make up for it. Wil's custom creations are great, due to his complete encyclopedic knowledge of AD&D 1e.

By contrast, I've played with a couple of DMs whose judgment I don't trust. I don't intend to play with them again -- whether they make custom creations or not.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-02, 08:27 PM
"A couple hours?" How much detail are you putting into these things? A paragraph's worth (sometimes put into the character's mouth, with permission) is usually plenty.

Combine that with a bit of deliberate muddying when you don't have specifics-- "I hail them using the traditional greeting, and tell them that I'm here on a quest from their god"-- and you're fine.

But this is my exact point. The DM can take a minute to give the player a ''standard handout paragraph''. And it's great for giving the player a tiny bit of information....but nothing even close to what an ''expert'' would know.

And the ''my character does things and stuff the right way'' is great if you don't like role playing and want to just skip past the boring fluff stuff and get back to the combat.


Player: Using his knowledge of their culture, Quarktor prepares his camp to receive them properly.
DM: OK. He prepares their favorite vegetarian dish, and blesses them in the name of their god. They respond with a traditional blessing of their people. At the end of the evening they have accepted Quarktor as a cultured and respected friend.

So, your way is just the player is vague and then sits back and lets the DM fill in the details. And like the one above yours is ''skip the fluff and role play to get quickly back to the combat and roll play''.

Now don't take it the wrong way, the ''zip quickly through anything except combat'' is a great way to play the game. Though I wonder why you would just not skip it all anyway....

Grod_The_Giant
2017-08-02, 08:58 PM
But this is my exact point. The DM can take a minute to give the player a ''standard handout paragraph''. And it's great for giving the player a tiny bit of information....but nothing even close to what an ''expert'' would know.

And the ''my character does things and stuff the right way'' is great if you don't like role playing and want to just skip past the boring fluff stuff and get back to the combat.
You can't have it both ways, dude. You can't refuse to give out information and then demand that players act out exact details on pain of "gotcha" moments. You have to:

Give your players general information and let them gloss over the details that weren't covered.
Give your players general information and let them make up small details that weren't covered.
Accept the odd question or correction mid-stream when you hit a detail that wasn't covered. (Which, honestly, shouldn't come up that often if your brief intro was good)

Or some combination thereof. Either that, or tell your players that knowledge skills are null and void, and the only way their characters can know things is via metagaming.

Also, no one is suggesting that players go "I do all the right stuff, back to the killing." Just that, when the exact nature of a detail is in doubt, you gloss over it with language like "in the name of their god" (instead of "in Gruumish's name") or "make the correct ceremonial greeting" (instead of "I make a quarter-bow and the sign of the sun").

Jay R
2017-08-02, 09:03 PM
So, your way is just the player is vague and then sits back and lets the DM fill in the details. And like the one above yours is ''skip the fluff and role play to get quickly back to the combat and roll play''.

No, this bizarre interpretation is not my way. My way is to use all the details I have and not sweat the details I don't have.

I did not mention combat; in fact, I specifically said that it led to the PC being accepted "as a cultured and respected friend." That's not combat; it just isn't. Furthermore, I did not mention a single roll whatsoever.

You invented the emphasis on combat and the emphasis on roll play based on zero evidence in my words. There is no rational way to interpret a discussion without combat or rolling as a desire to "get quickly back to the combat and roll play''.


Now don't take it the wrong way, ....

I'm not taking it the wrong way. I'm taking it as the falsehood and insult it is.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-03, 07:06 AM
You can't have it both ways, dude. You can't refuse to give out information and then demand that players act out exact details on pain of "gotcha" moments.

Well, your the one that is saying the whole ''gotcha'' bit, based on I guess your own personal bias. I never said I did that. I said, repeatedly, that I have the players Role Play everything out. So they start knowing nothing, then they have at act and speak, in character, to figure things out.



You have to:


Sure is odd to see you say ''you have to do one of the following'' and ''you must play the game this way or no way".



Or some combination thereof. Either that, or tell your players that knowledge skills are null and void, and the only way their characters can know things is via metagaming.

Well, guess I take option C then.


No, this bizarre interpretation is not my way. My way is to use all the details I have and not sweat the details I don't have.


Odd, your clearly said that the player could just sit back and causal say their character would vaguely do something and then the DM would take control of the character and do the fluff and role playing for the player. You did not use the exact words, but that is what you said.

So your style is the players don't need to role play at all: they just tell the DM what they want their character to do, and sit back and let the DM game by himself.

Now to me, talking control of a character rarely a good idea, and to do it every time the character has to ''know'' anything, is going to be a lot of the game time. And worse it does encourage the players to not pay attention as the fluff and role play don't matter and ''the DM will take care of all that stuff''.

A follow up question would be, when you take control of a players character, do you have any limit as to what you can do with their character?

For Example: Like say the character needs to make an offering at a temple.
Player: "Whatever, um, my expert character makes the appropriate offering at the temple''
The DM knows the offering must be an item of great personal worth to the character, but the player is clueless
So the DM will step in take control of the character and then says "Your character does the ceremony he knows as he is a religious expert and then puts his Belt of Battle on the offering table. The Clerics take your belt and thank you.
Player: "Wait, what?!"

Or do you stop the game, explain everything to the player and then ask them what item they want to offer?

Now, for the record, my way is known as Role-Playing:
Player-'Qutbert the gnome walks up to the temple''
DM: Temple Guard- "Halt gnome! You must make an offering to the Goddess before you can enter the temple!"
Player Qutbert-"Oh, I had no idea, I'm not from around her and I'm not a member of your faith."
DM: Temple Guard-"It is all right, Good Gnome, just make your offering."
Player Qutbert-"Um, I'm not sure what to offer..."
DM: Temple Guard-"You must give up an item of great WORTH and VALUE to you personally. Something you treasure, and will give to the goddess in return for entering her temple."
Player thinks using real life reasoning and intelligence-"All right, I'll offer my solid gold gnome joke trophy. "
DM: Temple Guard-"Very well, you may pass.."

Now granted my way does ''take time'', but we call this ''playing the game''.

Cluedrew
2017-08-03, 07:40 AM
Well, your the one that is saying the whole ''gotcha'' bit, based on I guess your own personal bias. I never said I did that. I said, repeatedly, that I have the players Role Play everything out. So they start knowing nothing, then they have at act and speak, in character, to figure things out.You never said you did gotcha, but the style you are describing can very easily lead to that. What if there are characters who are supposed to know more than nothing? I know lots of characters that worked because they were part of setting, they had lived in an area for their whole life, they new the locals, had friends and enemies there. Any it was easy to do if we accepted a little back and forth outside of the game.

Jay R
2017-08-03, 09:36 AM
Odd, your clearly said that the player could just sit back and causal say their character would vaguely do something and then the DM would take control of the character and do the fluff and role playing for the player. You did not use the exact words, but that is what you said.

You did the same when you said he cooked a vegetable meal without discussing what vegetables or what recipe he used. In both cases, we ignored details the character knew and the player didn't, when those details were not pertinent to the character decisions.

The point is that the amount of detail needed in a given situation is fluid, and trying to use detail you don't have can be just as much a problem as refusing to use the details that you do have available.

Yes, I sometimes require less detail than you do. We haven't shared enough information about our games to be sure how often, or how much. And since I have not mentioned combat, rolling dice, or taking away a character's magic items, you have absolutely no basis for forming an opinion about how I treat such things.

And in any case, we have nowhere near enough information for either of us to make a general claim about the other person's game.


So your style is the players don't need to role play at all: they just tell the DM what they want their character to do, and sit back and let the DM game by himself.

Please stop making up nonsense. In my example, the DM did not "take over the character". He added the details that the player didn't have and the DM did. The important decision (the PC prepares to receive them the swamp orc way instead of his usual way) had already been made, and made by the player. I just skipped the step of having the DM say "vegetable" so the player could say "vegetable" back to him. The player had explicitly made the RP decision. You wanted to add the word "vegetable", without going on to add details like "steamed", or "carrots". Which one is the "correct" level of detail? Whichever one might be best, you are not the final arbiter of it.

Another example.


Player: I move quickly across the floor, but slowly enough that I look out for and avoid any obvious dangers.
DM: OK. There's a lot of rubble and other refuse on the near left, and a pit on the far right. This means that to get to the opposite door 40 feet away you actually have to travel 60 feet.

This isn't taking away role playing, and the relevant character decision (watch your footing) was made by the player.

Similarly, when a character is speaking in Elvish, I let him describe it in English. I don't track how the pack was packed to know which things he cannot reach without taking the pack off. And I don't make him describe how the aiming point changes when he shoots an arrow at a target 80 feet away instead of 40.

There are ten thousand details we leave out when we game, as is clear from the fact that we can simulate weeks of activity in a single five-hour session.


Now to me, talking control of a character rarely a good idea, and to do it every time the character has to ''know'' anything, is going to be a lot of the game time. And worse it does encourage the players to not pay attention as the fluff and role play don't matter and ''the DM will take care of all that stuff''.

I don't take control of players' characters. I just don't. What you're calling "taking over their characters" doesn't involve changing their minds - just providing more information when I have it and the player doesn't.

But for some reason it's important to you to extend this far beyond anything I said, and to make up nonsense based on it.


A follow up question would be, when you take control of a players character, do you have any limit as to what you can do with their character?

I don't take control of players' characters. When I add details that their characters would know but the players don't, I don't make any decision that wasn't inherent in what they said.

In the one example you're basing all these wild guesses on, the player had already said that he was preparing his camp to receive them in the swamp orc way.


For Example: Like say the character needs to make an offering at a temple.
Player: "Whatever, um, my expert character makes the appropriate offering at the temple''
The DM knows the offering must be an item of great personal worth to the character, but the player is clueless
So the DM will step in take control of the character and then says "Your character does the ceremony he knows as he is a religious expert and then puts his Belt of Battle on the offering table. The Clerics take your belt and thank you.
Player: "Wait, what?!"

What a silly guess. I have not said anything that can be fairly or honestly interpreted as taking away somebody's magic item, and in running many games starting in the 1970s, I have never done so.

So far, you have accused me of a focus on combat when I did not mention combat, of returning to roll playing when I did not mention a roll, and now taking away a magic item when I never even mentioned a magic item.

These ideas are coming out of your own head alone. You found nothing about combat, roll playing, or magic items in my words, and nothing I have said was analogous to a focus on combat, or on roll playing, or on giving away somebody's magic item.

Not requiring the player to parrot the word "vegetable" does not mean I would take away somebody's magic item. And you just look silly pretending that it does. Nobody reading this forum will believe you.

Please stop making up nonsense. You don't know the sum total of how I run a game. You really, really don't. And all your guesses so far have been false.


Or do you stop the game, explain everything to the player and then ask them what item they want to offer?

Before I could answer that question, I'd need much more detail about the situation. Just like you need far more detail about my games before you can accuse me of a focus on combat or roll playing, or giving away magic items.


Now, for the record, my way is known as Role-Playing:

All ways are known as role playing. It's a role-playing game.


Now granted my way does ''take time'', but we call this ''playing the game''.

I call my way "playing the game". I will also call your way "playing the game". In fact, everybody's way is "playing the game".

And even if I decided that I didn't like somebody's way of playing, I would still call it "playing the game". Even at my most self-absorbed and elitist, I've never been vain enough to believe that playing the game differently from my way isn't playing the game.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-08-03, 10:03 AM
Well, your the one that is saying the whole ''gotcha'' bit, based on I guess your own personal bias. I never said I did that.
All of your examples have skewed that way, though. "I invite my buddies for food!" "Hah, you said the wrong food! They attack!" is gotcha DMing. "I make an appropriate offering." "Hah, you didn't specify, so you give up your most valuable item!" is gotcha DMing. It's imposing a serious disadvantage on the character because the player didn't act on information they not only didn't know, but didn't know they needed. When in doubt, assume basic competence.


I said, repeatedly, that I have the players Role Play everything out. So they start knowing nothing, then they have at act and speak, in character, to figure things out.
Which is a valid way of doing things, sure. Though it means that your players can only roleplay wide-eyed hayseeds and the like, who've never experienced most aspects of the world.


Sure is odd to see you say ''you have to do one of the following'' and ''you must play the game this way or no way".
I'm not saying that as an injunction, I'm saying that there are only so many options that can be done in a situation where the characters know things the players don't-- you can explain in exhausting detail, you can gloss over details, you can correct details, or you can ignore character knowledge altogether.


Odd, your clearly said that the player could just sit back and causal say their character would vaguely do something and then the DM would take control of the character and do the fluff and role playing for the player. You did not use the exact words, but that is what you said.

So your style is the players don't need to role play at all: they just tell the DM what they want their character to do, and sit back and let the DM game by himself.
No, it's letting the DM fill in minor details via narration, so that there doesn't need to be a constant back-and-forth you find so distasteful. Can you honestly not see the difference between "I make the appropriate ceremonial greeting, and ask how we might be of service" and "I roll a 24 on Diplomacy, tell me how it goes?"


A follow up question would be, when you take control of a players character, do you have any limit as to what you can do with their character?
Of course-- you don't do anything but fill in descriptive details.


Or do you stop the game, explain everything to the player and then ask them what item they want to offer?
Of course you do, because making informed choices is the point of roleplaying games.

Tinkerer
2017-08-03, 10:03 AM
For Example: Like say the character needs to make an offering at a temple.
Player: "Whatever, um, my expert character makes the appropriate offering at the temple''
The DM knows the offering must be an item of great personal worth to the character, but the player is clueless
So the DM will step in take control of the character and then says "Your character does the ceremony he knows as he is a religious expert and then puts his Belt of Battle on the offering table. The Clerics take your belt and thank you.
Player: "Wait, what?!"

Now, for the record, my way is known as Role-Playing:
Player-'Qutbert the gnome walks up to the temple''
DM: Temple Guard- "Halt gnome! You must make an offering to the Goddess before you can enter the temple!"
Player Qutbert-"Oh, I had no idea, I'm not from around her and I'm not a member of your faith."
DM: Temple Guard-"It is all right, Good Gnome, just make your offering."
Player Qutbert-"Um, I'm not sure what to offer..."
DM: Temple Guard-"You must give up an item of great WORTH and VALUE to you personally. Something you treasure, and will give to the goddess in return for entering her temple."
Player thinks using real life reasoning and intelligence-"All right, I'll offer my solid gold gnome joke trophy. "
DM: Temple Guard-"Very well, you may pass.."

Now granted my way does ''take time'', but we call this ''playing the game''.

Wow, so in your games there is no option for playing a war weary veteran? A scholarly know-it-all? Every character has to be a complete shut-in who has never set foot outside his door? Your way takes longer and doesn't add anything to role-playing vs:

Player-'Qutbert the gnome walks up to the temple''
DM: Temple Guard- "Halt gnome! You must make an offering to the Goddess before you can enter the temple!" Your character (being familiar with this religion) knows that the traditional offering is an item of great worth and personal sentiment.
Player- "Good day my dear fellow! I offer to the Goddess this, my solid gold gnome joke statue. I earned it as a child when the elder of my tribe had taken quite ill. For you see..."

Because of course he's going to launch into a verbose explanation, he knows that the party thief is going to take advantage of the distraction to slip inside the temple. There is no way that greedy SOB is going to part with a treasured and valuable possession...

And most importantly the players and the GM aren't complete idiots. The GM taking control of the players actions is a critical part of all role-playing, the key part is knowing what decisions aren't important. If the player says "I am going to forage for some food to make a meal for the party" does the GM respond with
GM "Okay what direction are you heading? North, Northeast, East, Southeast, South, Southwest, West, or Northwest?"
Player "Uh, North."
GM "Okay you find a bush with 36 berries on it, also the roots of this plant are edible"
Player "Well I'll pick the berries and dig up the roots"
GM "What are you using to dig up the roots?"
Player "What? My spade obviously."
GM "Well I didn't want to assume and take away your control"
Player "Okay well I'll go back to camp and prepare them"
GM "How are you preparing them" Etc...

Of course the above situation apparently can't happen in your games since none of the players know anything about the game world and as a result they can't know what berries are poisonous so if they don't stock up on rations in town they are all going to die from starvation.

I'm so used to being on the other end of this discussion. A number of the other people here seem to be under the impression that every character has access to... well the Monster Manual and the internet, that I don't think they appreciate how rare and inaccurate a lot of the information is in this type of world.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-03, 12:15 PM
You never said you did gotcha, but the style you are describing can very easily lead to that. What if there are characters who are supposed to know more than nothing? I know lots of characters that worked because they were part of setting, they had lived in an area for their whole life, they new the locals, had friends and enemies there. Any it was easy to do if we accepted a little back and forth outside of the game.

Sure, I guess anything can lead to anything. Well, why are there characters that are ''supposed'' to know so much? The player can't have the character really know ''so much'' as the player does not know all the ''much'', and the ways to fake it are very poor at beast. So maybe just have them ''not supposed'' to know so much?




And in any case, we have nowhere near enough information for either of us to make a general claim about the other person's game.

I think we do.




Please stop making up nonsense. In my example, the DM did not "take over the character". He added the details that the player didn't have and the DM did. The important decision (the PC prepares to receive them the swamp orc way instead of his usual way) had already been made, and made by the player. I just skipped the step of having the DM say "vegetable" so the player could say "vegetable" back to him. The player had explicitly made the RP decision. You wanted to add the word "vegetable", without going on to add details like "steamed", or "carrots". Which one is the "correct" level of detail? Whichever one might be best, you are not the final arbiter of it.

Well, you did clearly type that you, the DM, had the Player Character take actions and say things. Now this is called ''the DM controlling the character'', as you, the DM, controlled the character for the whole time. Sure the player gave up control, but it's still the Dm talking control of a player's character.




Another example.


Player: I move quickly across the floor, but slowly enough that I look out for and avoid any obvious dangers.
DM: OK. There's a lot of rubble and other refuse on the near left, and a pit on the far right. This means that to get to the opposite door 40 feet away you actually have to travel 60 feet.

This isn't taking away role playing, and the relevant character decision (watch your footing) was made by the player.

Well, this looks fine...for a simple action cut sequence that really does not fit ''how do you have an expert character know things'' question. But if you want to use this example...is there some reason this Bad DM did not describe the floor area before the player decided on what actions to take? Most normal games would have the DM describe everything first.




Similarly, when a character is speaking in Elvish, I let him describe it in English. I don't track how the pack was packed to know which things he cannot reach without taking the pack off. And I don't make him describe how the aiming point changes when he shoots an arrow at a target 80 feet away instead of 40.

There are ten thousand details we leave out when we game, as is clear from the fact that we can simulate weeks of activity in a single five-hour session.

Ok, well it is fair to say your very light on the details then..you like a game with light details. I for example, like details. And every item on a character is tracked and listed like ''dagger plus +1 right boot'' and such. Should a character say drop their backpack for some reason, I know exactly what is it in. Guess your more of the ''character can just 'pop' anything into their hand at any time''.




I don't take control of players' characters. I just don't. What you're calling "taking over their characters" doesn't involve changing their minds - just providing more information when I have it and the player doesn't.

But for some reason it's important to you to extend this far beyond anything I said, and to make up nonsense based on it.

But if you have a player's character speak and act, you are controlling the character, right? Look I agree it's a bad idea, and I'd never do it. But why are you saying you do it, and then are acting offended when I say your doing it.




I don't take control of players' characters. When I add details that their characters would know but the players don't, I don't make any decision that wasn't inherent in what they said.

In the one example you're basing all these wild guesses on, the player had already said that he was preparing his camp to receive them in the swamp orc way.

So you guess or interpret what you think the player might want to do, and then when you take control of the players character you try to do that.



Before I could answer that question, I'd need much more detail about the situation. Just like you need far more detail about my games before you can accuse me of a focus on combat or roll playing, or giving away magic items.

I'm not sure how much more detail I need: your games don't pay attention to details and you often ''use'' the player characters to do things in the game, so the player themselves don't have to role-play or act in the game. Seems clear cut enough.



All of your examples have skewed that way, though. "I invite my buddies for food!" "Hah, you said the wrong food! They attack!" is gotcha DMing. "I make an appropriate offering." "Hah, you didn't specify, so you give up your most valuable item!" is gotcha DMing. It's imposing a serious disadvantage on the character because the player didn't act on information they not only didn't know, but didn't know they needed. When in doubt, assume basic competence.

I thought I made it clear I don't ''got ya'' DM, but, yes, I do run a very hard core type game. So like a player's character will get at least three warnings of ''don't open the red door it leads to the Eternal Plane of Fire'', and later when the player is like ''My character Gorh opens the red door'', yes I do go ''Boom! fire shoots out and..."



Which is a valid way of doing things, sure. Though it means that your players can only roleplay wide-eyed hayseeds and the like, who've never experienced most aspects of the world.

Well, no, as I said, if you game with me for more then like an hour, a player is free to metagame anything the player knows. so game with me for a time, and a player will know a lot and can play...for real..a know-it-all.

Dragonexx
2017-08-03, 05:16 PM
I will point out that the "clueless character who needs to have the world explained to them" is a device in single author fiction that exists so one can explain information to the reader while staying in character and not breaking the flow of the story.

In the shared narrative that is roleplaying, it's not necessary, as everyone can just read the setting details beforehand.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-04, 06:32 AM
And most importantly the players and the GM aren't complete idiots. The GM taking control of the players actions is a critical part of all role-playing, the key part is knowing what decisions aren't important. If the player says "I am going to forage for some food to make a meal for the party" does the GM respond with

Of course the above situation apparently can't happen in your games since none of the players know anything about the game world and as a result they can't know what berries are poisonous so if they don't stock up on rations in town they are all going to die from starvation.

Well, no, I would not do it your example way. I'd do it:
Player-"My character Grom wants to hunt!''
DM- "No problem. Grom can take a couple hours and get a deer and three rabbits. "

Now, at no time is the DM talking control of the character. It's more just a fast forward of time.



I'm so used to being on the other end of this discussion. A number of the other people here seem to be under the impression that every character has access to... well the Monster Manual and the internet, that I don't think they appreciate how rare and inaccurate a lot of the information is in this type of world.

Well, one of my big house rules....one that has made many a player run from my house screaming...is that Knowledge Checks are ''rumors/folk lore/hearsay/gossip/guesses/random incorrect information mixed with maybe a couple real facts." Unlike the very badly written 3x rules that say knowledge checks are absolute fact and everyone is a super hard core expert and never ever wrong ever.

And as I let players use their own intelligence....oh it's loads of fun to watch a player have a character run from a giant snake and jump in a river and be like ''ha, it can't follow me as snakes can't swim!"


I will point out that the "clueless character who needs to have the world explained to them" is a device in single author fiction that exists so one can explain information to the reader while staying in character and not breaking the flow of the story.

In the shared narrative that is roleplaying, it's not necessary, as everyone can just read the setting details beforehand.

I guess you can say it's not necessary, but it's like saying anything else is not necessary.

Though first the players would have to read the setting details, of course.

But, even assuming the players could be bothered to do that, the setting details are all ways vague and only contain a tiny bit of information. You can just look at the setting details of any game posted anywhere. You get some names and places and a couple paragraphs...that is it.

Cluedrew
2017-08-04, 07:50 AM
Well, why are there characters that are ''supposed'' to know so much? The player can't have the character really know ''so much'' as the player does not know all the ''much'', and the ways to fake it are very poor at beast.I can answer the question in sentence 1, sentence 2's meaning escapes me (poor beast?). Anyways, the answer is because it gives you more character concepts to work with, that feel quite different from the others. There are only so many variations on ignorant farmboy you can do. Plus things like being hunted by an old ally who my character partied ways with before the adventure started is more interesting than generic PC with which you have no history with attacks you.

Some of my favourite characters only worked because they had history with the setting and world. They had friends and allies, rivals and enemies. They had stories to tell and people knew their name. Certainly it might be harder than waking around with an empty headed character, but not by much and it opens up so many possibilities for the characters you can run.

goto124
2017-08-04, 08:15 AM
sentence 2's meaning escapes me (poor beast?).

A typo. It's supposed to read "very poor at best".

Darth Ultron
2017-08-04, 08:22 AM
I can answer the question in sentence 1, sentence 2's meaning escapes me (poor beast?). Anyways, the answer is because it gives you more character concepts to work with, that feel quite different from the others. There are only so many variations on ignorant farmboy you can do. Plus things like being hunted by an old ally who my character partied ways with before the adventure started is more interesting than generic PC with which you have no history with attacks you.

Some of my favourite characters only worked because they had history with the setting and world. They had friends and allies, rivals and enemies. They had stories to tell and people knew their name. Certainly it might be harder than waking around with an empty headed character, but not by much and it opens up so many possibilities for the characters you can run.

Your character does not need to be an unbelievable expert that knows everything about everything to have a backstory. You don't have to know all hard crunchy rules and exploits for everything in the game to role play a character.

You can even be ''hunted by an old ally and have a long detailed back story'' and NOT automatically know every single detail about the game world.

So your kind of mixing two things: a character with a back story vs the character that is an expert.

The second sentence should be ''at best'', as there is no good way to ''fake'' being an expert. You get:
1.DM stops the game to tell the player whatever the character knows, often..
2.The DM just handwaves things ''your character does whatever and it's good''
3.The DM takes control of the player's character.

My way is:
1.Your character starts out as clueless, but feel free to pay attention during the game and even role play to try and discover anything you want.
2.Feel free to ask the DM questions at any time outside of the game. The DM more then welcomes a questionnaire E-mail or two.
3.Feel free to read up on your own any rulebooks or fluff novels about the setting. You are also free to ask the DM for a recommended reading and viewing list.

Lord Torath
2017-08-04, 10:16 AM
And it does get crazy with the 'old' stuff the players ''think'' they know. Like a couple weeks ago I had a PC group that was being escorted through some woods by some elves. At night the elves cut down a tree to make a fire. Two players really flipped out over this demanding that ''elves would never, ever cut down a live tree''. In their interpretation of elves, they think they would never do that. They agreed that elves can hunt for food, but can't cut down trees....I quite agree with your players. Forest-dwelling elves would almost never cut down trees to throw on a fire. Green wood doesn't burn well, and forest-dwelling elves would know that. I wouldn't blink an eye if they chopped down a tree, cut and split it into appropriately-sized pieces, and then added those to a cache to be burned at a later date though. :smallwink:

On topic, players only get to know about custom creations if it's something their characters would know. They will know next to nothing about monsters that only emerge from the depths every 100 years, or the lost lore said monsters bring with them. But they'll know lots about their immediate area, and possibly even a bit about the surrounding regions.

As Jay R says, there is an inherent trust you are putting in the DM when you agree to take part in her game. Sometimes there's a lot of trust, and you will trust the DM not to play "Gotcha" with new stuff. Sometimes, not so much. The less trust you have in your DM, the more detail you're going to want on custom creations.

Tinkerer
2017-08-04, 12:02 PM
Well, no, I would not do it your example way. I'd do it:
Player-"My character Grom wants to hunt!''
DM- "No problem. Grom can take a couple hours and get a deer and three rabbits. "

Now, at no time is the DM talking control of the character. It's more just a fast forward of time.



Well, one of my big house rules....one that has made many a player run from my house screaming...is that Knowledge Checks are ''rumors/folk lore/hearsay/gossip/guesses/random incorrect information mixed with maybe a couple real facts." Unlike the very badly written 3x rules that say knowledge checks are absolute fact and everyone is a super hard core expert and never ever wrong ever.

And as I let players use their own intelligence....oh it's loads of fun to watch a player have a character run from a giant snake and jump in a river and be like ''ha, it can't follow me as snakes can't swim!"


Well on the first point there it is most definitely a matter of the GM taking control of the character. I mean if my hunter went out hunting and brought back a deer and three rabbits I'd be kinda pissed as that's way more than I had intended to hunt for. That's going to be a ton of time that it's going to take out of my characters day to process it and a lot of weight added to the parties packs (~60-100 lbs). And I'm failing to see how that's less of an example of the GM taking control as the character making up a meal of the Swamp Orcs local cuisine.

For the second point I must admit I'm impressed. I thought that Wizards had screwed the skill monkey as hard it could get screwed but you've gone and proved me wrong. So it doesn't matter what the character knowledge is in the slightest, just what the player knowledge is. So a druid who has dedicated her life to the study of plants can't tell what a treant is but Groknar the barbarian with an intelligence of 3 can talk for days about how the aboleth is a psychic squid with hypnotic pattern, illusory wall, mirage arcana, persistent image, programmed image, project image, and veil, but they aren't very dexterous so if the mage uses a spell with a reflex save it probably can't dodge and watch out for it's tentacles because the only way to treat someone who fails a save if you don't have remove disease is to submerge them in water etc... Not only that but you went and made one of the character choices WORSE THAN USELESS. Since the knowledge skill return random information using them is literally worse than guessing. Trust me you will have less people running screaming from your table if you just remove the knowledge skills from your game altogether.

2D8HP
2017-08-04, 02:55 PM
Ha. No to this crap. I run 1st edition adnd....



No, no, and no. The primary reason to have custom creations is to re-inject a bit of mystery - .


As an Administrator/DM/Keeper/GM/Referee (never "Storyteller" by Crom!), I pretty much just reuse the Cultist shenanigans that I stole from were inspired by Conan the Destroyer, and Young Sherlock Holmes, but as a player (probably to no ones suprise) I greatly prefer the FreddyNoNose and Jay R approach, and would feel priveledged to sit at their tables.

I really enjoy the "Hollow Earth/Lost World" trope, in which adventures stumble upon a strange unknown new land where somehow they quickly learn the language (in some of the stories the "Lost Race" inhabitants are descended from Greeks or Romans and speak a language that is conveniently little different from one a protaganist studied in school, or you just go full Burroughs and the heroes are quick learners of languages despite being otherwise dim).

I much prefer that my PC's are "not from here" and get to explore the setting in-character.

Being from an isolated peaceful "shire" works well too

Quertus
2017-08-04, 06:51 PM
Everyone else is covering this conversation better than I would have. But this one bit:


I much prefer that my PC's are "not from here" and get to explore the setting in-character.

Being from an isolated peaceful "shire" works well too

Someone else "not from around here"?! And enjoys exploration?! I'm bloody ecstatic! :biggrin: :smallcool:

Cluedrew
2017-08-04, 07:06 PM
So your kind of mixing two things: a character with a back story vs the character that is an expert.I suppose so, but that is because in this particular case, they are mixed together. The character's back story is "mercenary with 10+ years of experience", and by dint of experience and not being dead was also an expert in a lot of things. Mostly related to fighting and shooting.

The ideas of back story and character knowledge are also both connect to the idea of tying the character to the setting. Back story mixes together history, but to express that you need call backs, the old enemies is one way but so is "I know just the place", where the place is something that has not yet appeared in the main campaign yet. And no, it did not have a million gold pieces or anything of the sort.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-04, 09:42 PM
I suppose so, but that is because in this particular case, they are mixed together. The character's back story is "mercenary with 10+ years of experience", and by dint of experience and not being dead was also an expert in a lot of things. Mostly related to fighting and shooting.

The thing is, it's really hard for most players to even role play an experienced character. It really does take a special skill set. And most players can't even not ''just play the character as themselves'' , or worse ''play the character like some B-Movie five year old''.

You can find plenty of threads where a DM complains players can't (or maybe won't) use even the most basic and simple tactic idea or even common sense. Things like ''don't start a fight were your outnumbered, if you don't really need too." But the player of a character that is a 25 year veteran warrior will do all sorts of things like that. Unless the DM stops the game every couple of minutes to tell the player ''oh, um, your character knows that is a bad idea'' or ''your character would never do that." And this get into endless ''do overs'', the DM telling the player what to do and worst of all the DM talking control of the players character.

2D8HP
2017-08-04, 10:19 PM
...Someone else "not from around here"?! And enjoys exploration?! I'm bloody ecstatic! :biggrin: :smallcool:


Well I'd be glad to try one of your 2e or 3.5 D&D games (I've never played those editions, only 0e D&D, 1e AD&D, RuneQuest, Traveller, and other games long ago, and TSR B/X D&D, WotC 5e D&D, and Pendragon more recently)!

While I'd love to play a Marco Polo, or Lewis & Clark type explorer (or Tristram from Stardust looking for a fallen star in Faerie, Sinbad seeking the a Roc's eggshell in 7th Yoyage of Sinbad, or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser climb Stardock), unfortunately we have minority tastes, and the "standard model" today seems to be "team of super-badasses, who have tragic back-stories beat on baddies to save the world"... :smallyuk:...which explains why so many insist on knowing all the "nuts and bolts" so they may better play super-competent superheroes, not my groove but still better than no game at all.

I've ranted about this before:

...my taste probably goes against what the majority of players like, but I prefer low power lever level PC''s who are down on their luck, in a Swords and Sorcery setting.

“In the Year of the Behemoth, the Month of the Hedgehog, The Day of the Toad......"Your almost at the location the old map you found says the treasure house lays".The Jewels in the Forest (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___2.htm)
:biggrin:

"A village hires you to protect them from bandits".
The Seven Samurai (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Samurai)
:smile:

What I don't like is "you are an agent of The Avengers/Control/Harpers/MI-7/Superfriends, and you have received an assignment to save the world, now write a backstory of how you came to be an agent of The Avengers/Control/Harpers/MI-7/Superfriends".
Age of Ultron (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron)
:yuk:

I want to role-play out how my PC "turned hero" in interactions with sympathetic NPC's and/or antagonists.

For me they are just too many "superheroes save the world" adventures, and not enough "becoming a hero" or "loot the Dungeon" adventures. And a don't like all these Get Smart like "Factions"!

Quertus
2017-08-05, 12:58 AM
The thing is, it's really hard for most players to even role play an experienced character. It really does take a special skill set.

This is a very true point. I wholeheartedly agree. Maybe some day I'll tell my related story about the haughty local group and their utter lack of skill.

Thing is, I've tried to play plenty of characters that I found I just couldn't pull off, either to my satisfaction, and/or to the satisfaction of my group. When I fail at a stretch goal, I just pick a new character. But I learn something in the trying.

Now, not everyone is me (happily? sadly?), so not everyone's experience with such an attempt will look like that.


Well I'd be glad to try one of your 2e or 3.5 D&D games (I've never played those editions, only 0e D&D, 1e AD&D, RuneQuest, Traveller, and other games long ago, and TSR B/X D&D, WotC 5e D&D, and Pendragon more recently)!

While I'd love to play a Marco Polo, or Lewis & Clark type explorer (or Tristram from Stardust looking for a fallen star in Faerie, Sinbad seeking the a Roc's eggshell in 7th Yoyage of Sinbad, or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser climb Stardock), unfortunately we have minority tastes, and the "standard model" today seems to be "team of super-badasses, who have tragic back-stories beat on baddies to save the world"... :smallyuk:...which explains why so many insist on knowing all the "nuts and bolts" so they may better play super-competent superheroes, not my groove but still better than no game at all.

I've ranted about this before:

Is Pentagon a new addition to your repertoire? If so, congratulations!

One can only hope that, in another lifetime, this might happen.

I don't personally correlate rules mastery with character competence / superhero mode (the opposite is more likely for me, actually), but I can see how others might desire such.

goto124
2017-08-05, 01:03 AM
Thing is, I've tried to play plenty of characters that I found I just couldn't pull off, either to my satisfaction, and/or to the satisfaction of my group. When I fail at a stretch goal, I just pick a new character. But I learn something in the trying.

I try as well, but when I fail I... really fail. I've attempted to pick up my lessons from the trying, but the emotional damage is harsh and I don't think it's really worth it for the sake of roleplay.

Maybe if I ever make a character I can fail at without the emotional damage, I could try and improve.

2D8HP
2017-08-05, 01:22 AM
...Is Pendragon a new addition to your repertoire? If so, congratulations!...


Yep!

Thanks!

:smile:

Finally got to play after first buying it in 1985, and wanting to play it ever since!

Disappointments?

Character creation is longer and more complex than I have patience for.these days.

Otherwise?

AWESOME!!! (and not just in a "cross it off my list" way).

It's matched my (very high) expectations.


...If it's got Dungeons and (especially) Dragons then it's good, whatever edition it is, as long as someone else is the DM (now Call of Cthullu, which is not my favorite to play, was dead easy to GM or "Keeper").
As long as it keeps bringing in players, let a thousand editions bloom!
Now if only I could figure out a way to get someone to GM Castle Falkenstein, Pendragon, or Space 1889!


What RPG's do you wish you had played but never got to?
My list would be:
1) King Arthur Pendragon
2) Castle Falkenstien
3) Post 1e AD&D editions of D&D

My first game love will always be the 1977 D&D "bluebook", followed by the oD&D/AD&D/All the Worlds Monsters/Arduin mix I played in the 1970's and 80's, but Pendragon has really captured my heart as well

Cluedrew
2017-08-05, 08:33 AM
The thing is, it's really hard for most players to even role play an experienced character. It really does take a special skill set. And most players can't even not ''just play the character as themselves'' , or worse ''play the character like some B-Movie five year old''.I'm not sure if you have unusually incompetent players or I play with unusually competent players, but there have only been a few players I have played with that couldn't do this sort of thing. Or maybe it was something about how we played, not sure I would have to do some analyses to be sure.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-05, 12:54 PM
Now, not everyone is me (happily? sadly?), so not everyone's experience with such an attempt will look like that.

It is fairly universal. The ability of anyone to role play an experienced character is a rare ability. A handful of people have natural talent, but like with all most everything it is an ability that needs to be learned.


I'm not sure if you have unusually incompetent players or I play with unusually competent players, but there have only been a few players I have played with that couldn't do this sort of thing. Or maybe it was something about how we played, not sure I would have to do some analyses to be sure.

It's more about gameplay.

If you approve of the DM stopping the game to tell the payers things or take control of a player's character, then for you, that is part of normal game play. Any outsider, or someone like myself that disapproves of both those styles of gameplay will spot it immediately. You don't even see it as stopping game play for the players to just sit there as the DM storytells or worse takes control of the whole game while the players sit back and watch.

If your doing the skip past anything except combat, well then your game is all combat. Of course, if you want an all combat roll playing game that skips all the other boring fluff stuff, then it's a great game for you.

And you might be doing the shared game style where ''everyone is a DM''. So all the DM's in the game can just make up whatever they want on the spot and all the other DM's in the game have to accept it 100%. This won't be anything close to a standard game, but if it is what you wanted, then it would work out.

Hooligan
2017-08-05, 02:22 PM
Though, to the smart player above....my answer would be ''no you don't know what a tavern is, or what a table is, just sit back and relax. We will let you know if you need to roll a dice for something." LOL

I don't know why but this literally made me laugh out loud.

Hooligan
2017-08-05, 02:39 PM
"I invite my buddies for food!" "Hah, you said the wrong food! They attack!" is gotcha DMing.

That moment when your friend says "come over and eat pizza." and left out the bit about it being gluten-free "dough" with "vegan cheese."

Cluedrew
2017-08-05, 07:38 PM
To Darth Ultron: I do believe you have no idea what I am talking about. To be more precise, your image of how we handle it is off and doesn't match what happens. You could call the GM giving the factoid the expert needs to play their character stopping the game, but really it is not any different (and does not take any longer) than any other question about the setting or a character. I don't know why you would call that stopping the game. Nor is it taking control of a character, because the player still decides what to do with it. As for co-GM style, well we often play with less pre-planned settings, so the players have more input, but there is a GM who still makes the final call. Even if it is usually, "yeah, lets go with that".

Talakeal
2017-08-06, 01:41 AM
The OP is kind of a weird duck, Darth presents a fairly reasonable point, but then goes onto use language that makes their players sound as unreasonable as possible.


Out of curiosity, why do you associate glossing over the small details to be emphasizing combat? In my experience combat is typically one of the more abstract parts of the game. If the DM deciding what the players cook when they say they want to prepare a local dish, how much more so is turning "I attack," into a fluid description of actual combat with fighting styles and hit locations and the rest?



I'm fine with players knowing..or thinking they know whatever they want to. I even believe in the ''reverse metagaming'' where if the player knows X, I'm fine with the character also knowing X.

How does "reverse metamaging" differ from standard metagaming?

BWR
2017-08-06, 04:09 PM
I much prefer that my PC's are "not from here" and get to explore the setting in-character.

Being from an isolated peaceful "shire" works well too

The problem I have with this approach is you have to know where these PCs are from already if you want to know how they should react and interact with the unknown, the slightly known and the thought-they-knew. Being from 'not around here' can easily mean twice as much work as just expecting the players to read a little beforehand and give correct information to the PCs about what they already know as needed.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-06, 05:58 PM
To Darth Ultron: I do believe you have no idea what I am talking about. To be more precise, your image of how we handle it is off and doesn't match what happens. You could call the GM giving the factoid the expert needs to play their character stopping the game, but really it is not any different (and does not take any longer) than any other question about the setting or a character. I don't know why you would call that stopping the game. Nor is it taking control of a character, because the player still decides what to do with it. As for co-GM style, well we often play with less pre-planned settings, so the players have more input, but there is a GM who still makes the final call. Even if it is usually, "yeah, lets go with that".

Well, are you talking about in a game where the player that knows nothing about the topic(s) their character is an expert in, has to ask the DM what their character knows, and then the DM will tell them?

Now, ok, sure if the ''what'' is just like one or two words, then the DM can just say "Banana Hammock" and game does not need to be stopped. Anything more then that, like say a whole paragraph or three of information, does involve stopping the game so the DM can read or say it to the player (or give the player a handout to read). This takes time, and the game must be paused to do it. Sure you can ''count'' the time spent reading or saying the expert information as ''time spent playing'' if you want, but it's like counting a time out of a sports game as ''time spent playing'' .

It's good to hear you don't take control of the player's characters, but many other DM's do.

Players have input, but the DM makes the call in a normal game. An All DM's is not a normal game for most games with a DM, as defined by the game rules...but some people game that way.


Out of curiosity, why do you associate glossing over the small details to be emphasizing combat? In my experience combat is typically one of the more abstract parts of the game. If the DM deciding what the players cook when they say they want to prepare a local dish, how much more so is turning "I attack," into a fluid description of actual combat with fighting styles and hit locations and the rest?

Most often, by far, the type of game that skips details is an all combat focused roll playing game. The game just skips by anything that is not combat....like when a kid too cool to read just skips all that lame text they put in video games so he can get to the fighting part.

The player that says they want to do something non-combat, and then just sit back and say ''oh, DM do this for me'' have the real potential to turn into a hard core roll player.

And there really is a perfect, beautiful way to tell a Roll Player: Would they ever do the ''Oh DM do this for me" In combat. Like the player would just say ''My character wants to attack the dragon, DM you take control and do that." Not too amazingly, no Roll Player would ever do that.




How does "reverse metamaging" differ from standard metagaming?

Well, it does not, other then your allowed to do it. So instead of the DM saying ''ok players your characters don't know what you know, so don't have them know'' it's ''Your characters know all the fluff and role playing and stories and other non mechanical rules stuff, so use it at will....at your own risk."

It's a lot like how doing the Quantum Ogre is ''not' Railroading....but it ''is''.

Cluedrew
2017-08-06, 06:30 PM
To Darth Ultron: It is usually a sentence or less. The character is an expert on the area: "Is there a river near by?" "Yes, to the west over the hills." The character is an expert in magic: "What rituals could this set up be use for?" "Not enough information to be sure, but is definitely some sort of summoning." The character is an expert and learned fighter: "Do I recognize her fighting style?" "Its definitely military."

I can't think of any questions that would require a three paragraph info dump. Their may be, but the longest I can think of was about three sentences, when I completely misunderstood some aspects of the weapon I had been carrying for the entire campaign. If you have a 3 paragraph example I would like to here it, but I can't see it coming up very often.

I mean this post has 157 words and it barely makes three paragraphs.

goto124
2017-08-06, 07:15 PM
More like 2 paragraphs with a one-sentence pointer. On mobile.

Probably counts as 1 paragraph on desktop.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-08-06, 08:15 PM
Most often, by far, the type of game that skips details is an all combat focused roll playing game. The game just skips by anything that is not combat....like when a kid too cool to read just skips all that lame text they put in video games so he can get to the fighting part.

The player that says they want to do something non-combat, and then just sit back and say ''oh, DM do this for me'' have the real potential to turn into a hard core roll player.

And there really is a perfect, beautiful way to tell a Roll Player: Would they ever do the ''Oh DM do this for me" In combat. Like the player would just say ''My character wants to attack the dragon, DM you take control and do that." Not too amazingly, no Roll Player would ever do that.
I mean, if the combat isn't going to be challenging, I'm a fan of handling it via narration-only. "Seeing that there's no escape, the desperate goblins hurl themselves at you. A few bloody minutes later, the deed is done. You lower your weapons, surveying a field of corpses."

Skipping over details is a required part of RPGs, otherwise all games would take place in real time and we'd spend months worth of sessions "roleplaying" dull rides through the countryside. Two sessions of nothing but rotating watches. Time spend eating, sleeping, pooping. Knowing when to fast-forward and when to linger is an important skill in a GM's repertoire. It's an art more than anything else, and it'll vary a lot from situation to situation.

JBPuffin
2017-08-06, 08:29 PM
I...this is a weird thread. For all of my groups, either players asks or DMs say, "you can this stuff, too." Latest DM asked a new player to play his homebrew class.

Kane0
2017-08-06, 11:36 PM
For me and my table:

1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates?
Not necessarily. If theres no reason to hide it then it is shared but it may be more fun to have it show up as a surprise in game (mage that has designed a new spell, custom loot to be found in a hoard, custom monster with cool ability, etc). Of course if the characters have reason to know about it, then they should probably know about it. No point going to all the effort of developing and introducing a whole class then barring the players from ever seeing it is there? Besides, players make good beta-testers.

2. Do Players always get full Rule Write Ups of Custom Creations?
Once it is 'discovered', yes. If something has been unveiled in game it is explained at the appropriate time (the details of the mage's awesome spell are given after he is seen casting it or shows the PCs his spellbook). A lot might be open by default (races and classes for example) or intended for the PCs to use so those deserve to be written for all to see, stuff that will only see play once or twice probably doesn't need such a formal treatment (eg 'This monster has an attack that steals your youth').

3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations?
Well we play a social, teamwork based game so custom stuff gets the peer review treatment by default. DMs get critique based on their performance whether they use custom content or not and will welcome the feedback, custom content operates the same way. It really helps the development process to be open about it.
That said the DM has final say on whether something goes or not in the campaign, so while the table might have a look over the proposed item and agree that it's OK the DM gets the veto whether to actually include it. Because the DM is not obligated to immediately reveal all content he may be using until it sees play the table review sometimes doesn't happen until after it has been included and used (at which point it is subject to critique and improvement rather than the OK to use).

4.How much Custom Creations is too much?
Never enough homebrew! The obvious exception is if the particular thing in question has already been done before, or if it takes away from the game rather than adds to it. If something has been introduced and been found to be of no benefit to the game then there is nothing that gives it the right to remain.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-07, 06:50 AM
To Darth Ultron: It is usually a sentence or less. The character is an expert on the area: "Is there a river near by?" "Yes, to the west over the hills." The character is an expert in magic: "What rituals could this set up be use for?" "Not enough information to be sure, but is definitely some sort of summoning." The character is an expert and learned fighter: "Do I recognize her fighting style?" "Its definitely military."

I can't think of any questions that would require a three paragraph info dump. Their may be, but the longest I can think of was about three sentences, when I completely misunderstood some aspects of the weapon I had been carrying for the entire campaign. If you have a 3 paragraph example I would like to here it, but I can't see it coming up very often.

Well, the problem is that your going from ''character being an expert and knowing a large amount of information about a topic'' to the very, very, very low bar of ''the character knows the answer to a single, simple straightforward question."

Sure, your simple answers work great for simple and direct questions, and can simulate ''trivia'' the character knows. Though, also, you have to have the player agree to ''ok, your character is a super duper expert....but, like only ask the DM like one or two questions per hour." Because if clueless player but expert character asks like 10-20 questions or more at a time, you will get to the ''paragraph of answers "really fast.

But an Expert knows a lot, and we are not talking about simple stuff. It's more like the Religion Expert knows all about Orc religion...and all other religions. So it's not ''do I recognizing the holy symbol?'' it is more ''What are the most common orc religious creation myths?'' or ''who are all the known Orc Gods and Goddesses?"

And this is where it comes in, the Expert would know the whole all the orc gods. And if you use the default D&D Orc gods that is like eight. So it's more, the DM has to tell the player a paragraph about all eight of the orc gods.

So we are not talking about knowing random trivia a character overheard at a fireside chat, we are talking about knowledge skills where the character when to some big formal school and was taught all the information.

Cluedrew
2017-08-07, 08:29 AM
Well, the problem is that your going from ''character being an expert and knowing a large amount of information about a topic'' to the very, very, very low bar of ''the character knows the answer to a single, simple straightforward question."But in most cases, being an expert amounts to consistently knowing the answer to a single straightforward question. The volume of knowing these bits of trivia (although if it has use, it is not as trivial trivia) is what makes them an expert as opposed to someone who picked up a bit of trivia. Of course what this represents is a large body of knowledge, but you rarely see more than a fragment of it at once.

Or that it how it works out in our games. I could see it working out differently in say, and investigation game.

Quertus
2017-08-07, 10:47 AM
To Darth Ultron: It is usually a sentence or less. The character is an expert on the area: "Is there a river near by?" "Yes, to the west over the hills." The character is an expert in magic: "What rituals could this set up be use for?" "Not enough information to be sure, but is definitely some sort of summoning." The character is an expert and learned fighter: "Do I recognize her fighting style?" "Its definitely military."

I can't think of any questions that would require a three paragraph info dump. Their may be, but the longest I can think of was about three sentences, when I completely misunderstood some aspects of the weapon I had been carrying for the entire campaign. If you have a 3 paragraph example I would like to here it, but I can't see it coming up very often.

I mean this post has 157 words and it barely makes three paragraphs.


But in most cases, being an expert amounts to consistently knowing the answer to a single straightforward question. The volume of knowing these bits of trivia (although if it has use, it is not as trivial trivia) is what makes them an expert as opposed to someone who picked up a bit of trivia. Of course what this represents is a large body of knowledge, but you rarely see more than a fragment of it at once.

Or that it how it works out in our games. I could see it working out differently in say, and investigation game.

Quertus is a self taught, well published expert in monsterology. I know what he knows, and can express how it affects his choices real time.

But, pretending I didn't. Or, easier, someone else was trying to play Quertus. They text me that "The party smells brimstone. WWQD?"

I can't possibly encapsulate the extent of Quertus' relevant knowledge into a simple text. Heck, Quertus published volumes of works on monsters; even which random bits of lore he might happen to latch onto in order to prepare his random strategies (if any) would take quite a bit of effort to explain.

Best case, I might say, "expect fire, mages, priests, labs, rituals, portals, demons, or devils. Maybe. Look / listen for more details, or cluelessly ignore. Maybe mention one at random. Maybe be prepared to counter fire, BFC in place of counter spells, or prot evil if party members start acting strange."

Does that make you feel like a tactically inept worlds-published author?

Or, perhaps a better example, how would a dragon expert tell a party to prepare if he thought there was a dragon ahead? There's quite a lot of possible answers; which subset they give is a matter of personality, so paring it down should be on the player, not the GM. The last time Quertus had to brief a party on a creature type, there were pages of text in his (only slightly verbose) explanation.

Quertus
2017-08-07, 10:55 AM
The problem I have with this approach is you have to know where these PCs are from already if you want to know how they should react and interact with the unknown, the slightly known and the thought-they-knew. Being from 'not around here' can easily mean twice as much work as just expecting the players to read a little beforehand and give correct information to the PCs about what they already know as needed.

This is a good point.

Say my character should know what a kite is, because it was a part of their culture / tech / whatever. The GM has the party encounter a kite.

If the GM knows my character's background, he can just tell me it's a kite (perhaps passing me a note so as not to tip off the other players). But this makes more work for the GM, having to know exactly what every pc's background entails.

Or the GM can just describe the scene. Then it's on a) the GM to describe it well enough; b) the player to pay attention enough to recognize the kite; c) the other players to roleplay their characters' ignorance if they happen to catch on.

Or, possibly, some retcon may be involved, if the player doesn't catch what the character should have.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-07, 11:58 AM
But in most cases, being an expert amounts to consistently knowing the answer to a single straightforward question. The volume of knowing these bits of trivia (although if it has use, it is not as trivial trivia) is what makes them an expert as opposed to someone who picked up a bit of trivia. Of course what this represents is a large body of knowledge, but you rarely see more than a fragment of it at once.

Or that it how it works out in our games. I could see it working out differently in say, and investigation game.

Well, if your playing a low information style type of game, then one answered question once in a while is more then enough. It does go back to ''the expert being useless''. Like, sure, the expert knew one or two short sentences about something..but that is it. So if knowing ''fish live underwater'' is enough for a player to say ''my character is a super marine life expert'' or if knowing ''swords are sharp objects'' is enough for a veteran lord high war general character expert, then everything works out.

Lets take for example your playing the new RPG LIFE, and in that game your character will play D&D. And lets say your an expert on D&D, so at the very least you know the Core rules front to back. So when your D&D expert character in the game needs to know anything about D&D, you can supply the information and knowledge. So everything works out.

But now take the example of playing RPG LIFE, but the player is clueless about D&D, and again has a D&D expert character. Sure the player can ask a simple question like ''um, how does someone win this game?'' or ''what is an AC?'' and the DM can answer them. But to even give the clueless player even a vague idea about anything in the game will take a huge amout of time, and everything will need to be explained.

Thinker
2017-08-07, 01:45 PM
I have answers to the originally posted question, too.

1. Do players automatically get access to every custom thing the DM creates?
Nope. Some custom created content is for players, most of it isn't. I don't often play systems where the rules are the same for the players as for the rest of the world so any content I make for the players is only usable by the players. That said, a custom ability or weapon is typically gained as a reward. The only exception is during character creation if it makes narrative sense for a character to have a custom ability. In that case, they must give up something of equal value (that can typically be gained later).

2. Do Players always get full Rule Write Ups of Custom Creations?
If it is something that the player has access to, yes. Time spent testing the limitations of the ability or equipment are hand-waved away.

3.Do Players get to approve Custom Creations?
Not for monsters, locations, etc. But for creations intended for player use, I don't force it on them. They can choose to use/learn whatever abilities they want and have access to.

4.How much Custom Creations is too much?
I don't know if there is a "too much". Most of my games are custom content.

Cluedrew
2017-08-07, 05:31 PM
Or, easier, someone else was trying to play Quertus. They text me that "The party smells brimstone. WWQD?"I'll admit I've never tried to use this strategy on a character who's level of expertise is so high. Perhaps it breaks down at a certain point. Although the source of information is also present and knows a lot more than "brimstone". Would it help if you were sitting in on the game when they turned to you and asked "WWQK".

What would Quertus know? Usually we just get knowledge out of this, not behaviour.


Well, if your playing a low information style type of game, then one answered question once in a while is more then enough. It does go back to ''the expert being useless''. Like, sure, the expert knew one or two short sentences about something..but that is it.I'll admit two things. One: I don't know what a "low information style type of game" means, could you please elaborate? Two: I don't have a measure for how useful it is. But I can say that getting the one or two sentences of pertinent information has been enough to make them feel like an expert. From an in world perspective the character knows the answer not because they know the one convenient bit of trivia, but because they knew a wide variety of things about the subject, so it is no surprise that they knew the most useful bit, which is the one they said.

Quertus
2017-08-07, 10:46 PM
I'll admit I've never tried to use this strategy on a character who's level of expertise is so high. Perhaps it breaks down at a certain point. Although the source of information is also present and knows a lot more than "brimstone". Would it help if you were sitting in on the game when they turned to you and asked "WWQK".

What would Quertus know? Usually we just get knowledge out of this, not behaviour.

I'll admit two things. One: I don't know what a "low information style type of game" means, could you please elaborate? Two: I don't have a measure for how useful it is. But I can say that getting the one or two sentences of pertinent information has been enough to make them feel like an expert. From an in world perspective the character knows the answer not because they know the one convenient bit of trivia, but because they knew a wide variety of things about the subject, so it is no surprise that they knew the most useful bit, which is the one they said.

How to explain? A good fighter can beat two men; a really good fighter can beat ten men at once; a great fighter/tactician (like, say, Batman) doesn't generally get into that situation, because he knows how to fight them one at a time.

The character of Quertus is easier (for someone else) to roleplay as an expert, because he is tactically inept. But a "true" expert, who is also tactically brilliant, can devise whole series of resource management and capability evaluations simply from the smell of brimstone. And knows which questions to ask, what to start looking for, and, honestly, what exit plans to have.

This is why I cheated and answered the easier question of WWQD, while saying that WWQK was too complex to answer at that point. Now, what he would know when he recognized a "BAY-lore", otoh, would be much easier to answer. But, by that point, it may already be too late.

goto124
2017-08-08, 06:22 AM
Would one typically play a character who knows that much knowledge and/or tactics? Especially starting out. And if it's a high-level character near endgame, usually the player is the one who has the knowledge and tactics.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-08, 07:01 AM
I'll admit two things. One: I don't know what a "low information style type of game" means, could you please elaborate? Two: I don't have a measure for how useful it is. But I can say that getting the one or two sentences of pertinent information has been enough to make them feel like an expert. From an in world perspective the character knows the answer not because they know the one convenient bit of trivia, but because they knew a wide variety of things about the subject, so it is no surprise that they knew the most useful bit, which is the one they said.

A low information style game is the type of game where one or two sentences is enough for a player to feel like an expert when role playing an expert character. Low information means low as in ''very little'' or ''not much''. Like a lot of things in the game ''low information'' is just barley enough to make a player feel like they know something/are relivant/have agency is really does not(but the players don't know that last part).

Low information is often found in a Casual Game.

It often leads (but does not have too) to the vague information type game and the all combat roll playing game: ''your character sees magic writing and knows what it says, but hey lets go to location 17B there is a coolz fight there!"

Quertus
2017-08-08, 12:16 PM
Would one typically play a character who knows that much knowledge and/or tactics? Especially starting out. And if it's a high-level character near endgame, usually the player is the one who has the knowledge and tactics.

Long stories, but Quertus has had numerous apprentices. He has tried to teach all of them. And he's published a huge collection of books detailing much of his knowledge.

A starting character who studies under Quertus, reads the books, actually pays attention, and doesn't tick Quertus off, could learn a lot before being sent out into the world.

I have yet to run a PC apprentice that wasn't a disappointment to Quertus. Some of the other PCs to apprentice under him may have faired better, but I wasn't around to follow some of their careers, and using a Wish to gain your apprenticeship ("I wish to be a mage, and all that entails", or some such) did not endear one PC to Quertus. And being so tactically inept that Quertus calls you out for it (suggesting buffing the enemies as a valid tactic!) doesn't earn you a lengthy apprenticeship, either.

Dragonexx
2017-08-08, 02:45 PM
Would one typically play a character who knows that much knowledge and/or tactics? Especially starting out. And if it's a high-level character near endgame, usually the player is the one who has the knowledge and tactics.

If you don't start at 1st level...

Cluedrew
2017-08-09, 07:36 AM
To Quertus: I know it has been enough for the characters I have done in the campaigns I have played them in. They tend to be short, dynamic and explosive and have a lot more in common with an action movie than the Ocean's movies. Still I've seen it work, asking about (or making up) just the bits of relevant information has been, in my experience, enough to simulate a much larger knowledge base.

FreddyNoNose
2017-08-10, 01:35 PM
I will point out that the "clueless character who needs to have the world explained to them" is a device in single author fiction that exists so one can explain information to the reader while staying in character and not breaking the flow of the story.

In the shared narrative that is roleplaying, it's not necessary, as everyone can just read the setting details beforehand.

Hey, shared narrative may encompass your roleplaying, it certainly isn't the definition of it. You newer type players somehow think it is that way. It is just your way.

Drynwyn
2017-08-10, 10:59 PM
A low information style game is the type of game where one or two sentences is enough for a player to feel like an expert when role playing an expert character. Low information means low as in ''very little'' or ''not much''. Like a lot of things in the game ''low information'' is just barley enough to make a player feel like they know something/are relivant/have agency is really does not(but the players don't know that last part).

Low information is often found in a Casual Game.

It often leads (but does not have too) to the vague information type game and the all combat roll playing game: ''your character sees magic writing and knows what it says, but hey lets go to location 17B there is a coolz fight there!"

I don't think this is true- that is, that answering a few questions means "low information." What makes an expert is NOT knowing all information, all the time- it is INSTEAD being able to answer a few questions reliably, whatever they may be.

Consider a biochemistry professor: He knows a zillion pieces of information about Topic Z! But, in any given scenario, only a few of these will be relevant. What makes a biochemistry professor useful is that he will be able to identify which of those pieces are relevant, and know those pieces in any situation (related to biochemistry.)

This can be very easily simulated- the GM passes the player the couple bits of information that are relevant every time there's a scenario where his knowledge is useful.

Is this less effective than knowing everything? Well, a little bit, since it would appear precludes forming complex, independent plans from your character's knowledge, since you don't actually have all of it. However, most complex planning occurs between sessions, not during them- a time at which you can much more freely ask your GM for a write-up on some info, since there's no flow of play considerations.

This produces what is effectively a high-information game- the players don't have all the information, all the time, because they shouldn't be expected to become genuine experts on a fake place play experts, just like I don't demand the player of a rogue be able to pick locks in real life. Instead, they have all the information that matters, which allows them to make decisions, and therefore shape the story, just like they were real experts- which is all that matters.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-11, 07:54 AM
I don't think this is true- that is, that answering a few questions means "low information." What makes an expert is NOT knowing all information, all the time- it is INSTEAD being able to answer a few questions reliably, whatever they may be.

This produces what is effectively a high-information game- the players don't have all the information, all the time, because they shouldn't be expected to become genuine experts on a fake place play experts, just like I don't demand the player of a rogue be able to pick locks in real life. Instead, they have all the information that matters, which allows them to make decisions, and therefore shape the story, just like they were real experts- which is all that matters.

I think to just stop the game, dozes and dozes of times to answer dozens and dozens of questions by a clueless player who is fake role playing an expert is a bad way to do an expert character. It can work, and lots of games do it, but I think it's a bad way to do it.

First off, if the player and more so the low information game is satisfied with a quick answer to an occasional question, then the character is not exactly an 'expert', but sure you can call the character that. If it's really just like ''one question an hour'' then it does not matter much, and the game can get back to roll playing and combat.

It gets a bit more tricky if the player and game want a bit more depth and complexity. You can't get that with an expert character that asks one question an hour; they will need to ask several dozen questions every five minutes. And this is stopping the normal game play to answer the players questions...and explain the answers and explain those answers too. Like in a low information casual game the clueless players character can see a symbol on a door and ask the DM ''My character is a symbol expert, tell me what my character knows about this symbol." The DM would then just simply say ''it is an arcane symbol for do not enter''. The player will then be like ''Wow, my character is so smart." And the game rolls on to the next combat encounter.

When you add even a tiny bit of depth and complexity, the DM's answer will be ''The symbol is the dark necromantic symbol of Moil known as Zelst-Re and translates into common as ''thou shall not enter''. And the player will need to ask lots of follow up questions, for several minutes, to learn even a small amount. What was Moil? Person place or thing? What is the symbol Zelst-Re known to do? Where has the symbol Zelst-Re been seen or used before? And on and on.

And yet another reason the ''ask a simple low information question'' way is a bad idea is the player must ask an intelligent, relevant, worthwhile question. And this puts a huge, huge burden on the player to ''role play acting smart'' and try to ask good questions that an expert might know or should ask.

And even more so, the clueless player of an expert character still has to pay attention and remember things and be able and capable of figuring out things, because knowledge comes in parts and builds on each other. So at like 8pm the player will be told ''the Dark Circle had six members'' and then at 10 pm they might get told ''Zamra-Ta was a member of a group of wizards'' they have to ''put 2 and 2 together '' and figure out ''Zamra-Ta was a member of the Dark Circle'' for real in real life.

Unless the game play takes the next logical bad step and has the DM take control of the character and have the character tell the player things the player does not think of or about. So they DM will stop the game all the time and be like ''oh, um, Bill, your character Zom remembers from a couple minutes ago when he read the scroll that Zamara-Ta was a necromancer''. Now some games love this style: the casual players can sit back and not pay attention and not put any effort into role playing or anything except combat and getting loot. The casual player can just nod and be amazed how much of an expert their character is, while the DM takes control of the character.

And once the DM takes even a bit bit of control of a players character, well there is not clear line of where to stop. Sure everyone will say the DM should not take control of a players character ''all the time'', but they will also say at the same time that the DM should or even must do so when it's ''important''. So if like a player of an expert character is about to do something stupid, the DM can take control and say ''your character is too smart to do that''. Though there is no real line and it's a slippery slope, as in general, everything a player does can be seen as ''unwise'' or ''not smart'' or ''did not think through'' and so forth. So does a DM then take control of the expert character all the time? Well, everyone would say no. So they DM has to pick and choose and do it only some times. So..sometimes at random, the DM will take control of the expert character and stop the players bad actions...but sometimes, at random, the DM will just sit back and do nothing.

But even if you take half of the game time or more to do nothing except answer the player of an expert characters questions....the player still won't be even close to a ''knows a little'' and not even remotely ''an expert''.

In all, I think it is a bad way to do it.

Hooligan
2017-08-11, 09:31 AM
I think to just stop the game, dozes and dozes of times to answer dozens and dozens of questions by a clueless player who is fake role playing an expert is a bad way to do an expert character. It can work, and lots of games do it, but I think it's a bad way to do it.

First off, if the player and more so the low information game is satisfied with a quick answer to an occasional question, then the character is not exactly an 'expert', but sure you can call the character that. If it's really just like ''one question an hour'' then it does not matter much, and the game can get back to roll playing and combat.

It gets a bit more tricky if the player and game want a bit more depth and complexity. You can't get that with an expert character that asks one question an hour; they will need to ask several dozen questions every five minutes. And this is stopping the normal game play to answer the players questions...and explain the answers and explain those answers too....

Darth what you've said here is flimflam.

First, piddlingly few players possess the skills/knowledge their D&D characters do. I'm sure you or someone else will argue otherwise but sorry nearly every D&D player knows nothing about killing with a sword, intimidating people, picking pockets, magic, etc. By default there will be no "expert players" as you've defined them throughout this thread. This is precisely why they are called "roleplaying games", you are pretending to be someone else.

Second, what is fake roleplaying?

Third, how do questions disrupt "normal gameplay"? I understand the desire to keep things moving, but how do you handle it when your players (as players do) start asking more and more questions about something you've described? Do you just say "shut the **** up!" and ride over them?

Darth Ultron
2017-08-11, 12:06 PM
First, piddlingly few players possess the skills/knowledge their D&D characters do. I'm sure you or someone else will argue otherwise but sorry nearly every D&D player knows nothing about killing with a sword, intimidating people, picking pockets, magic, etc. By default there will be no "expert players" as you've defined them throughout this thread. This is precisely why they are called "roleplaying games", you are pretending to be someone else.

True, but your jumping a bit.

I'm talking about how do you do an EXPERT in a field of knowledge. The modern way of not only several years of school, but also several years of practical experience. And also remember that Expert knowledge skilled character is D&D are never, ever wrong. It's just ''know everything'' or ''don't know that one narrow thing''.

We are not talking about just common things common folk know just being common.




Second, what is fake roleplaying?

Well, it's someone who is making no attempt on their part to role play independently as an individual are they are just asking another (often the DM) what to say and do to role play. So the player just there, does nothing other then say ''DM tell me stuff'' .




Third, how do questions disrupt "normal gameplay"? I understand the desire to keep things moving, but how do you handle it when your players (as players do) start asking more and more questions about something you've described? Do you just say "shut the **** up!" and ride over them?

Well, you did another jump here.

1.The whole group as in all the players want to stop and ask questions

vs.

2.One player wants to hog the spot light and force the other players to sit there as they ask the DM questions for several minutes.

Though it is a huge disruption when the clueless player is trying to fake role play and has to aks the DM questions every couple of seconds to even come close to pretending to be an expert.



Just to balance it out: My way is the characters start off as clueless, just like the players. Over time the player and character can learn all sorts of details, really anything they wish to take the time and effort in game play to learn. And after a couple good games, assuming they have paided attention, they have a large reasonable base to start from to role play an expert. In addition the player is encouraged to read up on their own and even ask the DM for handouts.

BRC
2017-08-11, 12:25 PM
Isn't "The GM tells players things their PCs should know" 90% of how RPG's work.

If I describe a room to my players, their PC's know everything in that room. I'm telling them what their characters see to bring them up to speed. I don't see that as substantially different from telling a Player what their PC knows about something.

Remember, when you're answering questions like this, you're not playing mischevious Oracle dispensing wisdom. You're representing the PC's knowledge of the subject, which includes ALL relevant information you've decided that they know based on whatever relevant factors exist (The results of a knowledge roll, for example).
Consider this bit


When you add even a tiny bit of depth and complexity, the DM's answer will be ''The symbol is the dark necromantic symbol of Moil known as Zelst-Re and translates into common as ''thou shall not enter''. And the player will need to ask lots of follow up questions, for several minutes, to learn even a small amount. What was Moil? Person place or thing? What is the symbol Zelst-Re known to do? Where has the symbol Zelst-Re been seen or used before? And on and on.

The PC isn't querying their brain and getting back exact responses, so the Player shouldn't need to either.
Let's say
DC 12: The Symbol is the dark necromantic symbol of Moil known as Zelst-Re and translates into Common as "Thou shalt not enter".
DC 14: Moil was an ancient necromancer who wrote a codex of dark magic.
DC 16: Moil's Codex is commonly used to teach necromancers in the Kingdom of Thal, which freely embraces the use of dark magic.
DC 17: This particular symbol is a warding glyph placed on a threshold. If somebody attempts to cross the threshold without saying the password the Glyph will alert all undead in the area to attack them.
DC 25: Moil built a backdoor into this particular spell. If you don't know the password, you can disable it by drawing three lines across in blood across the symbol.


The Knowledge Roll represents everything the PC knows about this particular subject. Once they make the roll, and you give them whatever information they've earned, they don't get to probe for further questions if you don't feel they would know that information (Stuff like "Where is Thal" is probably fine). If they only rolled a 15, then asking "What sort of necromancers would use Moil's Codex" doesn't reveal any new information (Not immediately anyway. They could research that information later).

If the Player decides they want to dive down a rabbit hole and waste lots of time extracting exposition from you, feel free to tell them to shut up. As always, keep an eye on the group. If everybody is getting bored, say "We're done here" and move on.
Most players should be fine with a quick burst of relevant information. Anybody who regularly tries to extract a novel from you is a problem player, and should be talked to.


True, but your jumping a bit.

I'm talking about how do you do an EXPERT in a field of knowledge. The modern way of not only several years of school, but also several years of practical experience. And also remember that Expert knowledge skilled character is D&D are never, ever wrong. It's just ''know everything'' or ''don't know that one narrow thing''.


Barring critical fails or the like, this is sadly a neccessary by-product of the system. Otherwise, players would be wasting lots of time doubting the results of their own knowledge rolls.

That said, a clever DM CAN handle "You get this wrong".

For example, somebody who rolled high enough to know who Moil is, but not high enough to know that particular sigil might get "Most of Moil's sigils are part of ritual magic, and will lose all power a few hours after they're drawn". From there they might determine that a sigil translated as "You shall not enter" might last longer , but they can't know for sure.

Cluedrew
2017-08-11, 04:59 PM
Isn't "The GM tells players things their PCs should know" 90% of how RPG's work.I'm not sure 90%, but that is how most information about the game world reaches the players. Background information might come from setting books and scattered pieces will come from the other players, but the bulk of active information about the world will come from the GM.


That said, a clever DM CAN handle "You get this wrong".Ideally: "You get it wrong: you think that..." which takes a certain type of player as well, but when you can reach that point of actively deciding your own spectacular failure, it works great.

I am describing it in a silly way but I you can get the whole character/player separation thing right, it works.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-12, 01:35 PM
Isn't "The GM tells players things their PCs should know" 90% of how RPG's work.

No? That makes it sound like a player sits there and does nothing.




If I describe a room to my players, their PC's know everything in that room. I'm telling them what their characters see to bring them up to speed. I don't see that as substantially different from telling a Player what their PC knows about something.

Well, except this is passive description, where the players just have to listen and then choose how a character will react.

The ''expert knowledge'' is the DM telling the player flat out ''this monsters weakness is fire, attack it with fire.'' See how that is just ''DM tell me the player what to do?




The PC isn't querying their brain and getting back exact responses, so the Player shouldn't need to either.

This is very true, and is one of my big problems.



The Knowledge Roll represents everything the PC knows about this particular subject. Once they make the roll, and you give them whatever information they've earned, they don't get to probe for further questions if you don't feel they would know that information (Stuff like "Where is Thal" is probably fine). If they only rolled a 15, then asking "What sort of necromancers would use Moil's Codex" doesn't reveal any new information (Not immediately anyway. They could research that information later).

Only if the Knowladge rules worked this way. I'd love it if the rules said:

1.A character only gets one roll ever on a topic(person, place or thing) and can only re roll once they have gone up a level and added at least one rank to the knowledge skill.
2.The DM is in complete and absolute control over how much of ''all knowledge'' a character knows.
3.The players are forbidden from asking any follow up questions on any gained from information they are told from a knowledge check. For example-If a player is told '' the fire red triangles in a line is the mage sigli of the wizard Zorpa''. They could never, ever ask who Zorpa was.



Most players should be fine with a quick burst of relevant information. Anybody who regularly tries to extract a novel from you is a problem player, and should be talked to.

Except I like and want to ''novel'' type players and not the ''lets skip all this fluff role play and get back to the combatz!''

Drynwyn
2017-08-12, 11:42 PM
Except I like and want to ''novel'' type players and not the ''lets skip all this fluff role play and get back to the combatz!''

Wanting the overall game story to resemble a novel's dramatic arc, and wanting the GM to spit out a novel's worth of information at the drop of a hat, are two entirely different concepts that share a single word in their description. I think the context makes this clear.

Alternatively, if your comment is taken at face value in context, and you want players that mainly want to hear you spit out a novel, I recommend writing a novel. It's much easier, and tends to reach a wider audience.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-13, 09:22 AM
Wanting the overall game story to resemble a novel's dramatic arc, and wanting the GM to spit out a novel's worth of information at the drop of a hat, are two entirely different concepts that share a single word in their description. I think the context makes this clear.

Alternatively, if your comment is taken at face value in context, and you want players that mainly want to hear you spit out a novel, I recommend writing a novel. It's much easier, and tends to reach a wider audience.

I have found that a lot of players do like the 'novel approach' once they are exposed to it and play through it.

Some players, the hard core roll playing optimizers that can't (or just won't) role play and just want the game to be all rolls and combat, with only a sprinkle of fluff, like a video game.

And this game is just fine, for that type of gamer. A local DM, DM Dave, runs an all combat, all optimized, no role playing alphabet dungeon(each room has a monster from a letter: like B for beholder) at the Taco Bell. And they have tons of their type of fun. And some players love this type of game, and love trying to ''be better'' then the other players by having a character that does more damage.

Not all gamers are like that though. Many want more form a game. A lot are tempted by the roll side, as it ''sounds'' so cool. But many find the ''just roll'' to be very hollow after a very short time.

So they move on to other types of games....and some even come to my games.

Pelle
2017-08-13, 10:28 AM
Only if the Knowladge rules worked this way. I'd love it if the rules said:

1.A character only gets one roll ever on a topic(person, place or thing) and can only re roll once they have gone up a level and added at least one rank to the knowledge skill.
2.The DM is in complete and absolute control over how much of ''all knowledge'' a character knows.
3.The players are forbidden from asking any follow up questions on any gained from information they are told from a knowledge check. For example-If a player is told '' the fire red triangles in a line is the mage sigli of the wizard Zorpa''. They could never, ever ask who Zorpa was.



Not sure which games you play and how it works there, but as DM playing 3.5 now I hate trying to keep track of what I have answered on previous Knowledge rolls, so that they can't just ask the same again and again until they get a nat20 suddenly knows everything...

I know however, that when I play 5e next campaign, I will use Passive Knowledge checks for what they know at the moment, and allow for Active rolls only if they are researching, for example spending a day in a library. And I will make lists before and during the game, with DC for various relevant topics.

Using Passive, they would get the same answer every time, unless they increase Int or Prof. Wouldn't that fulfill the points on your list as well?

Darth Ultron
2017-08-14, 06:51 AM
Using Passive, they would get the same answer every time, unless they increase Int or Prof. Wouldn't that fulfill the points on your list as well?

Well, I don't know much about 5E.....

Pelle
2017-08-14, 08:38 AM
Well, it means basically taking 10 instead of rolling d20...

Mordaedil
2017-08-15, 01:51 AM
Darth, are you allergic to rolling dice or something? You keep using video game analogies as if they are an inferior hobby and "rollplayer" as an insult, as if that actually carries any weight.

Are you not just blanketly applying your prejudicistic viewpoints to dismiss every other viewpoint as if it was inferior as some sort of self-conscious effort to think of yourself as superior in some fashion?

Is your life really so bleak that you must back up your ego by diminishing others sharing your hobby in this fashion? This makes you seem incredibly petty.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-15, 06:48 AM
Darth, are you allergic to rolling dice or something? You keep using video game analogies as if they are an inferior hobby and "rollplayer" as an insult, as if that actually carries any weight.

Are you not just blanketly applying your prejudicistic viewpoints to dismiss every other viewpoint as if it was inferior as some sort of self-conscious effort to think of yourself as superior in some fashion?

Is your life really so bleak that you must back up your ego by diminishing others sharing your hobby in this fashion? This makes you seem incredibly petty.

As an Old School gamer I love dice. Buckets of dice for the win!

Well, yes the so called video game ''RPG''s are inferior to the real thing of table top role playing with real people. Any clear thinking normal person can see that. It's not an ''inferior'' hobby, as if there could be such a thing. Some people play Chess, some people play Checkers, and some people play Tic Tac Toe.

Roll playing is simple as it's all combat and other things that need rolls and does not involve anything else, compared to role playing where everyone role plays a role in the game. It's ''my character BardGuy rolls a 22 to talk to the king'' vs. the players an DM role playing out the ''dinner with the king'' for several minutes.

Well, I did get lots of good answers to my questions.

Mordaedil
2017-08-15, 07:25 AM
In my experience, I often have had sessions where we roleplay pretty heavy long sections that most people seem to just gloss over, but while it is quite enjoyable and rewarding in its own sense, it is a bit sad to me that the experience reward you get from roleplaying a hefty section convincing a king to act only to get 50xp for "good roleplaying" while a similarly difficult combat scenario can give several hundreds of experience points.

While this isn't the case for everyone, it establishes a precedent that "boring roleplaying isn't as rewarding", so they want to rush past it to get on to stuff that actually pays them back for the time they invest. I think that's where the toxic interaction comes from and it isn't actually inherited from video game RPGs at all.

Heck, most video game RPGs actually give good rewards for dialog sections, from Baldur's Gate to Neverwinter Nights, where you can get anywhere between 200 to 1000 xp for properly roleplaying the dialog system and sometimes other goodies too.

That is inconsistent with how the rulebooks for tabletop D&D encourages roleplay, by actually diminishing the rewards and thus pushing players away from participating. That isn't the players being impatient dullards, that's them just being smart about the game, if they know you aren't going to reward exploration, roleplaying or conversations with the NPC's of your campaign, of course they aren't going to bother with it.

Baldur's Gate and the like trained me to actually participate and get interested in roleplaying by having exciting rewards for me if I was clever. Even then, I don't think I actually really understood the true essence of roleplaying until I played NWN online, where rewards were much less, but the consequence for good roleplaying was having an effect on the actual server you played on, from toppling cities to changing ruling factions and negotiating trade.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-15, 12:07 PM
In my experience, I often have had sessions where we roleplay pretty heavy long sections that most people seem to just gloss over, but while it is quite enjoyable and rewarding in its own sense, it is a bit sad to me that the experience reward you get from roleplaying a hefty section convincing a king to act only to get 50xp for "good roleplaying" while a similarly difficult combat scenario can give several hundreds of experience points.


This is very true.

D&D might be the worst offender too. D&D is all about combat for experience, and no matter how much smoke they blow about 'how you get xp for encounter experience', they just amazingly never make rules for that.

Though good DM's give lots of XP for role playing, no matter what the rules say.

Role playing also has the reward of knowing things in the game. Player A that talks to an NPC for even two minutes can learn X. Player B that refuses to role play or even pay attention unless their is combat does not learn X.

Drynwyn
2017-08-15, 06:04 PM
This is very true.

D&D might be the worst offender too. D&D is all about combat for experience, and no matter how much smoke they blow about 'how you get xp for encounter experience', they just amazingly never make rules for that.

Though good DM's give lots of XP for role playing, no matter what the rules say.

Role playing also has the reward of knowing things in the game. Player A that talks to an NPC for even two minutes can learn X. Player B that refuses to role play or even pay attention unless their is combat does not learn X.

None of this is incompatible with characters having certain knowledge that their players do not. Nobody is saying that players should be omniscient, and there can and should be mysteries- but it's possible to play characters who are very knowledgeable about the world without forcing the players to memorize everything about the world.

There's a space between "players know everything, move on to combat" and "players know only what has explicitly occurred in front of them and what can be logically derived from that."

Darth Ultron
2017-08-15, 07:25 PM
There's a space between "players know everything, move on to combat" and "players know only what has explicitly occurred in front of them and what can be logically derived from that."

But that is not what was being talked about, it's clueless vs expert. Like clueless is 0 and expert is 10, and players want to jump to 10 ''experts that know everything''.

But really anything more then like ''2'' can't be done in a game without the clunky stopping the game or handwaving everything.

Just take something very simple (and dumb) that an ''expert'' might know....like all 120 people living in a single town. The way most games do this..poorly..is every single time the character meets an npc in town they have to stop the game and the DM has to tell the player who the npc is and give them at least a paragraph of ''who this is''. And for most players this will be doing it over and over and over again as the DM has to stop the game, again, and tell the player ''no player Bob, your character remembers...again...that Tomv is the town tailor ".

JNAProductions
2017-08-15, 07:33 PM
First off, most players are going to remember your information. If you're dealing with Bob the tailor each session, they won't need a refresher unless the sessions are real far apart.

And if they deal with Bob, say, session one, and the next time they deal with him is session eighteen, then yeah, they'll probably need a refresher. But that's not bad. Because, let's say you have one page written about Bob. There's a lot of details-but the thing is, the player doesn't need to know them all. Just be smart, and give the essential details.

For instance, for Bob, it might be as follows:

"Bob is the local tailor. He's been divorced three times, since he's a bit of a womanizer, but has a good heart."

That took me less than six and a half seconds to say. Now, you, the DM, HAVE more details. You know the names and details of the three women he's been married to, you know exactly why he's considered good-hearted, you know how much money he makes as a tailor and what wares he has available... You've got a good page of a write-up on this guy. But with that six-second sentence, the player can roleplay well. They know the basic details about Bob, and that's all that's truly needed. You can prompt them with more info if it comes up-for instance, if they call over their friend Jane, who's one of Bob's ex-wives, you should mention that.

But overall, you seem to be exaggerating a lot of stuff. It doesn't take a paragraph repeated ad nauseum to let a player be knowledgeable, it just takes a sentence or two of pertinent information.

Tinkerer
2017-08-16, 11:51 AM
But that is not what was being talked about, it's clueless vs expert. Like clueless is 0 and expert is 10, and players want to jump to 10 ''experts that know everything''.

But really anything more then like ''2'' can't be done in a game without the clunky stopping the game or handwaving everything.

Just take something very simple (and dumb) that an ''expert'' might know....like all 120 people living in a single town. The way most games do this..poorly..is every single time the character meets an npc in town they have to stop the game and the DM has to tell the player who the npc is and give them at least a paragraph of ''who this is''. And for most players this will be doing it over and over and over again as the DM has to stop the game, again, and tell the player ''no player Bob, your character remembers...again...that Tomv is the town tailor ".

That just sounds like poor roleplaying. I can't say I ever ran across a game recommending that or a group doing that. Roleplaying is like a dance with the GM and the players, that just sounds like stepping on each others toes. It's also extremely rare for a game to allow you to start off at 10. Furthermore you have eliminated the possibility of the players having a home town which they can interact with or any sort of attachments to the world. "No sorry you can't have a family, I don't want to have to describe them to you each time you interact with them." You keep saying that it's impossible to do when most people seem to be saying that it's fine and they do it all the time.

This conversation seems to have gone from "Should PCs know about what sort of exceptions there are to the standard game rules" to "Should PCs know anything about the world that their characters play in"

Darth Ultron
2017-08-16, 12:04 PM
"Bob is the local tailor. He's been divorced three times, since he's a bit of a womanizer, but has a good heart."

That took me less than six and a half seconds to say. Now, you, the DM, HAVE more details.

But overall, you seem to be exaggerating a lot of stuff. It doesn't take a paragraph repeated ad nauseum to let a player be knowledgeable, it just takes a sentence or two of pertinent information.


But, again, your moving the knowledge.

Look at this scale:

0- The character knows nothing.
5- The character knows bits of random Trivia
10-The character is an Expert and knows everything

Now, from other posters it would seem that most games ''say'' they are playing at 10, but they are really playing down at 5.

Look how they play out:

0-DM-"Your character sees a half orc in a gray robe walking down the street''. Clueless Player- "Well, guess I'll role play my character and go walk over to the half orc and talk to him to find out who he is and other information about him." Rjar the Mighty(aka CP)- "Hail, there, may I speak with you?"

5-DM-"Your character sees a half orc in a gray robe walking down the street''. The Casual Player-"My character tries to remember anything about him'' *Roll* "I got a 30" DM-"Your character knows the half orc well, he is Korm the scared keeper of the Dark Vorpal Blade of Doom..." Casual Player-"Ok"

10-DM-"Your character sees a half orc in a gray robe walking down the street''. The Must Know Player-"My character knows everything, DM stop the game and tell me all about this half orc in detail." DM-"Ok, game pause. You other players can just go hang out or something. Well, the half orcs name is Korm..."

See the huge differences?

The ''trivia character'' is not even close to an ''expert character''.

Cluedrew
2017-08-18, 06:40 AM
Am I the only one who thinks "bits of random trivia" is an odd half way point between knowing nothing and knowing everything? That strikes me more as a 2 than a 5. Also, if being an expert means knowing everything, than Quertus is probably a 9 and my biggest expert was probably a 7. Experts know a good deal less than we give them credit for.

Friv
2017-08-18, 02:44 PM
I'm not sure if you have unusually incompetent players or I play with unusually competent players, but there have only been a few players I have played with that couldn't do this sort of thing. Or maybe it was something about how we played, not sure I would have to do some analyses to be sure.

Based on many, many previous threads, Darth Ultron does in fact, have unusually incompetent players, largely because he's driven so many people away with his play style that he's out of options.

On a related note...


I thought I made it clear I don't ''got ya'' DM, but, yes, I do run a very hard core type game.

And as I let players use their own intelligence....oh it's loads of fun to watch a player have a character run from a giant snake and jump in a river and be like ''ha, it can't follow me as snakes can't swim!"

Mordaedil
2017-08-21, 01:21 AM
Snakes can swim, though they'd drown trying to bit someone in water.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-21, 06:24 AM
Am I the only one who thinks "bits of random trivia" is an odd half way point between knowing nothing and knowing everything? That strikes me more as a 2 than a 5. Also, if being an expert means knowing everything, than Quertus is probably a 9 and my biggest expert was probably a 7. Experts know a good deal less than we give them credit for.

Guess I see it 0-know nothing, 3 Trivia and 5 Expert. I agree ''so called experts'' often know nothing, but sadly that is not in the rules.

Cluedrew
2017-08-21, 06:43 AM
And I suppose you are an expert on this?

More seriously, is that still with "know everything" as a 10? We didn't just switch to a 5 point scale right?

Darth Ultron
2017-08-21, 03:36 PM
And I suppose you are an expert on this?

More seriously, is that still with "know everything" as a 10? We didn't just switch to a 5 point scale right?

10 points is just to wide, you'd get 0 to 4 know nothing, 5-7 Trivia, and 8-10 expert.

Cluedrew
2017-08-21, 07:27 PM
And your improved 5 point scale?

RazorChain
2017-08-21, 08:27 PM
Having an expert character in games poses no problem.

In a gaming session there are rarely more than handful of knowledge rolls and often it's a direct, specific question, like "what do I know about wraiths? Do they have any weaknesses?"

Stopping the "action" to answer questions about the world is one of the GM's jobs and most GM's should be happy to have engaged players who stop to ask questions to learn more about the world.

In fact I often do recaps during play as my games can get complicated with lots of intertwined plots. So if the players ask for a recap or refreshing their memories helps the game to progress I'm happy to oblige.


Of course I'm not saddled with idiot players that turn my gaming sessions into ask RazorChain about anything, so experience may vary.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-21, 11:55 PM
Having an expert character in games poses no problem.

In a gaming session there are rarely more than handful of knowledge rolls and often it's a direct, specific question, like "what do I know about wraiths? Do they have any weaknesses?"

Stopping the "action" to answer questions about the world is one of the GM's jobs and most GM's should be happy to have engaged players who stop to ask questions to learn more about the world.


It's true most players have no problem doing the ''handful of knowledge rolls '' and then claiming there character is an ''expert''. Any any game that has the focus somewhere else, like combat for example, will only have a couple knowledge rolls as the players don't care about that ''boring fluff role playing'' anyway.

That is one way to do it, but it's not my way.

Talakeal
2017-08-22, 01:12 PM
I am trying to actually picture how Darth Ultron's ideal game would actually look in play. The closest I can imagine is a real time Harry Potter sort of thing, where the players spend most of their time listening to NPCs exposit and hope that they can pick the vital clues that they need to remember out of the dross incase it becomes relevant when they are railroaded into an adventure that can't be solved by combat or dice rolling.

Cluedrew
2017-08-22, 03:48 PM
I think it would look a lot like a computer RPG game, except with the challenges constantly shifting to keep you from relying on the same trick constantly. But that is just piecing things together, I've actually never asked.

To Darth Ultron: The five point scale.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-23, 07:40 AM
I am trying to actually picture how Darth Ultron's ideal game would actually look in play. The closest I can imagine is a real time Harry Potter sort of thing, where the players spend most of their time listening to NPCs exposit and hope that they can pick the vital clues that they need to remember out of the dross incase it becomes relevant when they are railroaded into an adventure that can't be solved by combat or dice rolling.

Well, I definitely don't' do the do the murderhobo game where the players just kill everything in sight or the roll playing game where the players just roll and roll and roll and roll some more dice and don't do anything else.

My games do have a ton of detail, it would seem maybe something like two or three times more then other games...at least. And I do expect players to pay attention and remember things. And for the players that ''can't'' remember, I do encourage the taking of notes. I also require my players know the game rules and setting details and specifically know every common detail about their own characters skills, abilities, spells and other things. And again for the players that ''can't'' remember, I encourage the use of cards, notes, or such. So my game is not very welcoming to the casual gamer who just drifts in, drinks a cola, tosses some dice around and says ''did I hit? Did I win? D&D is the coolest game 4ever!".

I do follow the 50% Role Play, 50% Combat and I do it in the way where you can expect a lot of both. The game will spend a whole half hour in immersed role playing, and then spend forty five minutes in combat, then 15 minutes of role play and so on. Unlike most ''50/50'' games that do more the ''5 minutes role play'' and ''hour of combatz''.

[QUOTE=Cluedrew;22315420]I think it would look a lot like a computer RPG game, except with the challenges constantly shifting to keep you from relying on the same trick constantly. But that is just piecing things together, I've actually never asked.
[QUOTE]

I do the Status Que type game, so I don't 'shift' anything. The Royal Vault Treasure Guards are 15th half gold dragon human sorcerer/fighters with helms of True Seeing, Flaming Swords and Fortification armor even when the Player Characters are 2nd level. The Barkeep at the Boar's Nest is a 12th level expert with a custom bag of tricks that summons...boars, no matter what level the Pc's are at the time.

Cluedrew
2017-08-23, 08:02 AM
I was speaking in terms of narrative layout, not in terms of auto-scaling enemies. By the way, that is some pretty exotic "regular" NPCs you got there.

Also the 5 point scale.

Tinkerer
2017-08-23, 01:37 PM
Well, I definitely don't' do the do the murderhobo game where the players just kill everything in sight or the roll playing game where the players just roll and roll and roll and roll some more dice and don't do anything else.

My games do have a ton of detail, it would seem maybe something like two or three times more then other games...at least. And I do expect players to pay attention and remember things. And for the players that ''can't'' remember, I do encourage the taking of notes. I also require my players know the game rules and setting details and specifically know every common detail about their own characters skills, abilities, spells and other things. And again for the players that ''can't'' remember, I encourage the use of cards, notes, or such. So my game is not very welcoming to the casual gamer who just drifts in, drinks a cola, tosses some dice around and says ''did I hit? Did I win? D&D is the coolest game 4ever!".

I do follow the 50% Role Play, 50% Combat and I do it in the way where you can expect a lot of both. The game will spend a whole half hour in immersed role playing, and then spend forty five minutes in combat, then 15 minutes of role play and so on. Unlike most ''50/50'' games that do more the ''5 minutes role play'' and ''hour of combatz''.


See now this is why I'm having trouble taking you seriously. Every time someone mentions that they've had expert characters work out well in their game you counter with "Well that's fine if you like information light games." or "Obviously you are all about the combatz you roll player."

I've got about 500 - 600 pages of world building on my current campaign world (not counting NPCs) and I tend to run a fairly even blend of role playing and combat. I'd say combat occupies between 0 and 60% of the time spent at the table depending on the session, with one session within the past year being an exception at 90%. I use a moderate amount of custom creations. Mostly things like a groups signature ability, mad wizardry, dimensional travelers, and the like. I can honestly say that in the past decade I've only run into one player who plays like the examples that you've been giving as to why it doesn't work. I might be willing to accept that there are many players and DMs out there who are as intentionally disruptive as you've mentioned but the fact that you keep passive aggressively putting down anyone who disagrees with you makes me question where the fault lies here.

Also I just assumed that note taking was the standard at all tables, was I mistaken on this front? We normally have one head chronicler and each person takes notes for their character on top of that.

Quertus
2017-08-23, 05:20 PM
Also I just assumed that note taking was the standard at all tables, was I mistaken on this front? We normally have one head chronicler and each person takes notes for their character on top of that.

To borrow a turn of phrase here, back when I had a younger and more agile mind, I almost never took notes, and neither did anyone else for that matter. We just remembered stuff.

These days, I made lists whenever I have to tackle the Herculean challenge of remembering 2 or more things. And, on that note,


My games do have a ton of detail, it would seem maybe something like two or three times more then other games...at least. And I do expect players to pay attention and remember things. And for the players that ''can't'' remember, I do encourage the taking of notes. I also require my players know the game rules and setting details and specifically know every common detail about their own characters skills, abilities, spells and other things. And again for the players that ''can't'' remember, I encourage the use of cards, notes, or such. So my game is not very welcoming to the casual gamer who just drifts in, drinks a cola, tosses some dice around and says ''did I hit? Did I win? D&D is the coolest game 4ever!".

I do follow the 50% Role Play, 50% Combat and I do it in the way where you can expect a lot of both. The game will spend a whole half hour in immersed role playing, and then spend forty five minutes in combat, then 15 minutes of role play and so on. Unlike most ''50/50'' games that do more the ''5 minutes role play'' and ''hour of combatz''.

Cluedrew: I think it would look a lot like a computer RPG game, except with the challenges constantly shifting to keep you from relying on the same trick constantly. But that is just piecing things together, I've actually never asked.


I do the Status Que type game, so I don't 'shift' anything. The Royal Vault Treasure Guards are 15th half gold dragon human sorcerer/fighters with helms of True Seeing, Flaming Swords and Fortification armor even when the Player Characters are 2nd level. The Barkeep at the Boar's Nest is a 12th level expert with a custom bag of tricks that summons...boars, no matter what level the Pc's are at the time.

I think it would be hilarious to play a guest appearance of epic Quertus in whatever game you're running. I'd have fun role-playing, he'd have fun learning about all the custom content in your world, and combat? Well, that's tricky, but, thanks to this thread, I think I understand myself better.

See, I'm a war gamer. Very few GMs can actually present properly challenging scenarios to a war gamer in an RPG. And you know what? You don't want them to. Because a properly challenging combat scenario should, if taken to its conclusion*, have a 50% chance of a TPK. That means, after 10 good scenarios, there should be less than a 1-in-a-thousand chance that you haven't started the party over from scratch. Worse, even if the party won every encounter, that's still probably around 50% casualties each time, so, assuming an even distribution of deaths, and not "Bob makes characters that live; Frank makes suicidal weaklings", that's less than a 1-in-a-thousand chance of having the same character after 10 encounters that the party won. So good war gaming is really not conducive to role-playing a character for any length of time.

So, while I enjoy war games, when I'm playing an RPG, I'm not looking for good war gaming in combat. No, I enjoy either steamrolling the enemies to get to something more interesting, or to have something more interesting in combat, like puzzle monsters, or the challenge of figuring out what random way Quertus will choose to "help" the party this time.

Or, you know, more role-playing in combat. 50% combat, 100% role-playing. That's my bag, baby.

As long as I don't have to make any rolls, or otherwise interface with the rules, I think it might be a blast.

* this means no-one surrenders, runs away, etc.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-23, 05:37 PM
See now this is why I'm having trouble taking you seriously. Every time someone mentions that they've had expert characters work out well in their game you counter with "Well that's fine if you like information light games." or "Obviously you are all about the combatz you roll player."

Because no one has ever given an answer to the question: How do you have a player that knows nothing or next to nothing about everything in the game setting play an expert character?

The only answer given is the Trivia one: When the player wants to ''play the expert'' they ask the DM to tell them what their character knows and/or make a check. So the DM tells the player maybe a whole sentience about something. Then the player is ''happy'' and they ''say their character is an expert'' as they now know and can say the one thing the DM told them.

And people have said the also don't stop the game and have A) The player of a expert character ask lots and lots of questions or go into long details about anything that would take at least several minutes to tell the player.

So in game play it is like: DM: "Ahead the door has a symbol on it of two crossed daggers covered in red flames.
Player: *rolls* "Got a 40, DM tell me what my expert character knows about this symbol."
DM: "This is the symbol of the Brotherhood of Crossed Flames, an evil group of fire wizards.''

And...that is it. The DM is not telling a whole story (''your character know that long ago, in the time before time, there was a group of fire wizards that..") and the DM and Player are not doing ''20 or more questions'' about everything.

This is not ''playing an expert'' by any means....it is ''playing a trivia person''.

So:

The Other People Way: Player knows nothing and does not have to do anything actively, and when they want to know what their character knows they have to ask the DM, but only a little bit and once in a while.

My Way: The player only starts knowing nothing, and assuming they pay very close attention and are very active in role play in the game and take lots of notes and ask for more details and ask questions when the game is not being played they will soon enough be ''close'' to real experts.

A great example of something an ''expert'' should be able to do is easy enough, and that is know things without being told.


Yet another Real Life Example. I can safely say I'm a Star Trek Expert. I have seen each episode of each Trek show at least five times. Show me a clip of any Trek Episode and I have a good chance of knowing the name and plot of the episode(Even, Great Maker, Voyager ones). You could show me a character or alien and I can tell you most everything known about them. I can even go as far as identifying mantle paintings from each episode and the multiple times the single painting is reused for something different(plus also planets and starbases too...).

But that is Star Trek, and I'm a fan (with a good, excellent memory). So I can play a Star Trek Expert no problem.

But take something I know nothing about. Like say Anime. I can't play an expert on that ''stuff''. Like say there was an Anime called Cool Dino, about a Dino Boy Vampire Cyborg with a super duper sword that can cut through anything (I really don't know anything about Anime and if such a show even exists, but lets just say it does.) So say you showed me a clip of the Cool Dino show of a guy that jumps in the air (you know for like five minutes) and then cuts a mountain in half and drops it on the bad guy mummy robot pirate werewolf villain. I'd know nothing about any of that (other then thinking, ''wow, how dumb'').

So, but the way other ''do expert'' I would make a check, and ask the person who showed me the clip a question like ''wow, what is the name of that awesome sword?'' That person would then tell me ''oh, wow, that is the sword Cuts Anything! It is made from an upside down moonbeam reflected in dark water on a Sunday."

So, now I know one detail: the name of the sword...and it's beyond stupid sort of backstory. But nothing else. I don't even know the name of the character that was using the sword in the clip.

And this is where I have been told the information stops. I can't ask 20 or more questions and I won't be given a long, long, long, long explanation.

So if I was to see another clip, with a sheath that has a Blue Fish on it....I would not know that was the Super Duper Sheath of All Holding. I'd need another check to know that and I don't want to ''stop things'' and ask more questions.

So there is no way I could even try to be an Anime Cool Dino expert, it's just pointless. Unless someone stops and takes several hours to tell me everything and I watch all the episodes several times or I just ask 100's of questions .





. I might be willing to accept that there are many players and DMs out there who are as intentionally disruptive as you've mentioned but the fact that you keep passive aggressively putting down anyone who disagrees with you makes me question where the fault lies here.

I meet lots of disruptive gamers...everywhere.

I'm not passive aggressive, I'm aggressive aggressive (or whatever that opposite is). I put a ton of detail in my game, a lot more then it seems most others. I'm not sure how this fact ''puts down'' anyone. Some gamers like lite details...and some hate lots of details and will run scraming from my house when they are told they have to remember (or write down) the names of NPC's they meet. If a player tries the ''I want to go talk to that gnome guy I was talking to before'' stuff in my game...well, they won't like the results.



Also I just assumed that note taking was the standard at all tables, was I mistaken on this front? We normally have one head chronicler and each person takes notes for their character on top of that.

I find it's the opposite. It's hard for me to get I'd say at least half of all players to take notes.

Friv
2017-08-23, 06:10 PM
Because no one has ever given an answer to the question: How do you have a player that knows nothing or next to nothing about everything in the game setting play an expert character?

Lots of people have given you lots of answers to that question, you just ignore or reframe their answers until it matches your pre-conceived notions, as always.



I meet lots of disruptive gamers...everywhere.

I'm not passive aggressive, I'm aggressive aggressive (or whatever that opposite is). I put a ton of detail in my game, a lot more then it seems most others. I'm not sure how this fact ''puts down'' anyone. Some gamers like lite details...and some hate lots of details and will run scraming from my house when they are told they have to remember (or write down) the names of NPC's they meet. If a player tries the ''I want to go talk to that gnome guy I was talking to before'' stuff in my game...well, they won't like the results.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5a/24/92/5a249266ae01a9c900e37ec338835776--big-kids-principal.jpg

Darth Ultron
2017-08-24, 08:36 AM
Lots of people have given you lots of answers to that question, you just ignore or reframe their answers until it matches your pre-conceived notions, as always.


I only see two answers? Maybe your looking at another thread?

I only see ''We do a simple game with little details'' or ''we do the trivia knowledge(but call it expert knowing ) with the important adaations of it's only a tiny bit of detail at one time and can only be done once in a while."




See, I'm a war gamer. Very few GMs can actually present properly challenging scenarios to a war gamer in an RPG. And you know what? You don't want them to. Because a properly challenging combat scenario should, if taken to its conclusion*, have a 50% chance of a TPK. That means, after 10 good scenarios, there should be less than a 1-in-a-thousand chance that you haven't started the party over from scratch. Worse, even if the party won every encounter, that's still probably around 50% casualties each time, so, assuming an even distribution of deaths, and not "Bob makes characters that live; Frank makes suicidal weaklings", that's less than a 1-in-a-thousand chance of having the same character after 10 encounters that the party won. So good war gaming is really not conducive to role-playing a character for any length of time.


Hummm...well by your definition I'm a War Gammer. Though I have not played much of any war game unless you count RISK.

I do follow the 50% failure rate for anything in the game. And I'm a Killer DM, infamous for killing player characters....all the time.

Though it needs to be understood that apparently unlike most other posters here I do not only game with my bestest best friends in the world. A good half of my games I play with strangers or people I only like know the name of or something. It would seem most posters don't do this, so I'll explain:

Sometimes, some gamers get together and want to play D&D...but all of them want to be players and none of them wants to be DM. So what they do is look for a DM. Then enter someone like me who will say ''I'll do it''. Now the players will have a list of things they want, and so will I as the DM. As DM I will be upfront, brutal and honest about the players list. So if a player says he ''must'' have the Tome of Battle or D20 Anime, I will say ''sorry I'm not the DM for you'' and leave. Unfortunately players are much more sneaky and dishonest as they ''just want to play''. So they will read over my house rules, see something they don't like or somehow ''read'' something that is not there or ''think'' the Dm ''won't do what the house rules say'' for some reason...so they will agree to play by the house rules.

So the game will start, and within seconds Billy Problem Player will be like ''I goz and scout by myself and abandon the group'' (big house rules no-no), and he will discover something like a cave with an iron door in the back, guarded by six tough looking orcs. Billy will, of course, ''Attackz!'' with his first level gnome illusionist right into melee with six orcs. Maybe all of two rounds later Zompot the gnome illusionist will be dead.

So from my view Billy broke several rules he agreed to (back when he lied about doing that): Don't ever play a Solo game and Never Leave the Group. Plus he ignored the rule of ''this is a deadly game and your character can die''. And he was overall stupid for jumping g into a fight when his character was outnumbered and out matched.

Billy, if he is lucky, might be crying in a corner and saying ''how bad of a DM I am''. Or he ran away screaming about how he ''waz gonna go home and plaz Halo 45'' or whatever .

So, over all, like 75% of the character death in my games is of this type.

And most often, the player is the one that kills their character. Like for several hours of game play the player will be told many times and in many ways during the gameplay that: ''only an elf can step through and elf gate all other races will be killed''. Then later they will encounter the massive magical ElfGate, and they will say ''my character walks into it...what happens?".

It is a bit rare for a character to die ''just playing the game''....but it does happen.

Cluedrew
2017-08-24, 09:09 AM
See, I'm a war gamer. Very few GMs can actually present properly challenging scenarios to a war gamer in an RPG.I am also a war gamer, but not in a role-playing game. There are a variety of reasons why, and you mentioned some of them yourself, but that is a topic for a different thread.


I only see ''We do a simple game with little details'' or ''we do the trivia knowledge(but call it expert knowing ) with the important adaations of it's only a tiny bit of detail at one time and can only be done once in a while."Yes, that is what you see. And as one of the main proponents of the second I would like to say there are a few important things you should consider.
Its not limited to small bits of information infrequently, that is usually all it takes. Occasionally, a larger section of info is required. Once my GM had to spend 2-3 minutes talking about a weapon I had been carrying for the whole campaign, but misunderstood.
Trivia: information of little or no use. Often associated with scattered bits of information. First off it is not of no use, we don't bother with the information that doesn't matter and only say important things. Scenes and the course of entire campaigns have been altered by these bits of information. So they are hardly trivia. Second they are not scattered, its not "oh I heard this once" but "out of the many things I know about this, this is the most relevant one right now".

Also, if you still remember it I would love to see your 5 point scale of expertise.

Quertus
2017-08-24, 10:13 AM
I am also a war gamer, but not in a role-playing game.

So, just to be clear, that's "also not a war gamer in a role-playing game".


I only see two answers? Maybe your looking at another thread?

I only see ''We do a simple game with little details'' or ''we do the trivia knowledge(but call it expert knowing ) with the important adaations of it's only a tiny bit of detail at one time and can only be done once in a while."

How about, "we distill the information down to what we believe the most relevant bits are, and deliver them as needed"?

So, when an anime expert sees anything related to anime, a) he's told that it's anime; b) he's given what, from the GMs omniscient perspective, seem the most relevant details given b1) the current scenario b2) the character's history and b3) an eye to the future, and c) allowed to ask any follow-up questions on the topic at any time.

Now, there are certainly edge cases where this will fall down, and is tough for some experts, like, "what does Quertus know about the smell of sulfur, as relates to coming home from an adventure alive?", but I suspect that this style of dissemination of relevant information will pass for expertise with minimal disruption at many tables.


Hummm...well by your definition I'm a War Gammer.

I hadn't realized I'd defined the term.


I do follow the 50% failure rate for anything in the game. And I'm a Killer DM, infamous for killing player characters....all the time.

''I goz and scout by myself and abandon the group'' (big house rules no-no), ''Attackz!'' with his first level gnome illusionist right into melee with six orcs. Maybe all of two rounds later Zompot the gnome illusionist will be dead.

So from my view Billy broke several rules he agreed to (back when he lied about doing that): Don't ever play a Solo game and Never Leave the Group. And he was overall stupid for jumping g into a fight when his character was outnumbered and out matched.

So, over all, like 75% of the character death in my games is of this type.

And most often, the player is the one that kills their character. Like for several hours of game play the player will be told many times and in many ways during the gameplay that: ''only an elf can step through and elf gate all other races will be killed''. Then later they will encounter the massive magical ElfGate, and they will say ''my character walks into it...what happens?".

It is a bit rare for a character to die ''just playing the game''....but it does happen.

Why did it always seem to come down to definitions?

I wouldn't call "Don't ever play a Solo game and Never Leave the Group" house rules. They're part of the social contract. House rules are more, "everyone can carry twice the stated encumberance value, dwarves never suffer intoxication penalties, and concentration does not exist as a skill". But whatever.

This is not a technical definition, but, IME, a good war game is a balanced scenario, where you could hand either side to random people and expect about a 50% win ratio from either side. Where it's a test of luck and skill. Where the rules of the game are followed, and dice are rolled in the open.

As I've already explained, this is horrible for most RPGs. If the protagonists survive an average of one encounter, you aren't really seeing much character development.

What you describe is a highly lethal world for completely different reasons - ones which are very much not fun for the war gamer. Killed because the scenario is completely lopsided? That's no test of skill. Killed because of stupidity? That's a different kind of skill.

My "50% rule" is the logical consequence of following the rules in a balanced scenario. Historically, your 50% rule, IIRC, is you wanting to change the rules to force a certain fail chance (although I never did ask if you also make things arbitrarily easier for unoptimized, unskilled characters). So long as I never had to interact with the rules under you, I suspect I could have a blast. But we have diametrically opposed paradigms when it comes to the proper role of the rules, skill, and probability.

So, no, you don't suffer massive attrition in nearly every battle, with half of completed engagements resulting in a TPK. So your combat scenarios happily are conducive to a role-playing game, not a war game.

Which is highly relevant to the thread topic.

See, if you were playing a war game, custom creations would be odd, but they would be subjected to scrutiny by both sides before being admitted to a game. Few war games play with hidden information - it kinda defeats the point.

But an RPG? Hidden information is part of the fun. But the challenges have to be way, way easier than they would be in a war game in order to be conducive to the corresponding type of fun.

Now, I still hold by my original stance that, after the fact, those stats should generally be made available.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-08-24, 11:05 AM
To be fair, from their post on their DMing style, I think I understand why Darth Ultron is so opposed to Knowledge skills doing anything:

They're running a Sierra game.

You know, one of the really old-school adventure games where doing the wrong thing could kill you (or otherwise ruin your playthrough) in an instant. You survive though being really paranoid, paying really close attention, and most of all through trial-and-error; it's all about the player's skill at doing those things. The character's skill doesn't enter into it, because that's not challenging.

Having a Knowledge skill that tells you "don't say 'mud' in front of the swamp orcs, they'll get offended and kill you" is bad because it lets you bypass that trial-and-error. And by extension, so is having a Diplomacy skill that lets you make a welcoming speech without having to worry about saying "mud," and so is having a Perception skill that tells you there are spearmen in the bushes waiting for you to say "mud" without having to make a paranoid check to find them, and so is having a Heal skill that lets you treat the poison without having to remember that the barkeeper advised you to have mudroot with you in the swamp. In a sense, it's cheating-- you're putting in a code (skill points) to auto-win at a challenge (don't say "mud" to orcs).



(I disagree with pretty much everything about said style, but it's the most optimistic explanation I can think of)

Quertus
2017-08-24, 11:10 AM
I disagree with pretty much everything about said style

Do I understand correctly that you hate having player skills instead of character skills? Can you either explain why, or, if it'd take too long, do you perhaps have a previous explanation of why that you could point me to?

Tinkerer
2017-08-24, 12:17 PM
So in game play it is like: DM: "Ahead the door has a symbol on it of two crossed daggers covered in red flames.
Player: *rolls* "Got a 40, DM tell me what my expert character knows about this symbol."
DM: "This is the symbol of the Brotherhood of Crossed Flames, an evil group of fire wizards.''

And...that is it. The DM is not telling a whole story (''your character know that long ago, in the time before time, there was a group of fire wizards that..") and the DM and Player are not doing ''20 or more questions'' about everything.


Well it breaks down a bit more complex than that.

Player: "Got a 40 on my Knowledge: Local (Thisnation)" since what skill dictates the type of knowledge "What do I know about this symbol."
GM: "This is the symbol of The Brotherhood of Crossed Flames. It is an ancient worldwide secret society of fire wizards, predating the founding of this entire nation. The goals of the organization are shrouded in mystery however whatever they are up to seems nefarious considering seem to worship destruction itself. Their members can often be identified by this symbol being branded on their inner thigh. They were wiped out from Thisprovince 30 years ago however all mention of the fight were stricken from the records. You are familiar with what cities in Thisnation The Brotherhood has a presence in, as well as some hangouts. Except for in Thatprovince, where you suspect they hold some sway, they are executed whenever discovered, this is a secret order given to the captain of the guard in all major cities."

Player notes: Brotherhood of Crossed Flames: Worldwide ancient secret society. Seem to worship destruction. Symbol often branded inner thigh. Wiped out from Thisprovince 30 years ago, records scrubbed. Possible influence in Thatprovince. I know major cities and hangouts. Executed by gov. on sight.

I just timed that and the response took about 30 seconds to read. It was clearly defined as to what was known about them and what was conjecture. Of note is that since this was a Knowledge: Local check they only really know about how the society relates to the local government. If they had made a Knowledge: Religion check they would have known they worship the god of destruction and seek to end the world, however not the relations or history nearly as well. If you have Knowledge: Secret Societies you would know the leaders and goals of the group.

Aaaaand I just realized that I shot myself in the foot a little here. By defining The Brotherhood as a top secret society I did move the goalposts and raised the difficulty of knowledge which is not fair to your example (got a little carried away with my head canon regarding the group). Assuming they are less of a secret society and more open than a 40 would get you: the character is familiar with the customs of the group, they would know the purpose, they are familiar with the leaders enough to probably be able to recognize them on sight, and if there are any prominent members in the town I would let them know who they are. So about 15-30 seconds of additional information.

It isn't important to actually bring up every single detail of what the character knows so long as you let them know what they know. The same way as when a character travels through a forest you don't stop and describe every single tree that they see. If they want a specific detail which isn't important right now I invite them to bring it up after the session. If they want a specific detail which is important right now I'll give it to them so long as they have reason to know.

I do find it difficult to believe that you run into as many incompetent players as you mention. And I find it odd that you seem to delight in bringing them to tears and chasing them away from the hobby (I certainly hope that was hyperbole). Several of the worst players that I've run across wound up becoming the best players I've seen, mainly due to being able to assist them when they're learning. I kill many characters (roughly 1 every 4-5 sessions) due to playing a highly lethal system and I can't say that I've seen one go fleeing from my table as a result.

EDIT:
So, when an anime expert sees anything related to anime, a) he's told that it's anime; b) he's given what, from the GMs omniscient perspective, seem the most relevant details given b1) the current scenario b2) the character's history and b3) an eye to the future, and c) allowed to ask any follow-up questions on the topic at any time. This is a much more concise way of saying what I was trying to get at. Although on c I would refine that to they may ask any relevant follow-up questions at anytime, any tangential ones are best left until after the session.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-24, 12:19 PM
Do I understand correctly that you hate having player skills instead of character skills? Can you either explain why, or, if it'd take too long, do you perhaps have a previous explanation of why that you could point me to?

For me, it's because I'm me every day. I want to be someone else with a different skill set for a while, not "myself but arbitrarily different"

Friv
2017-08-24, 12:41 PM
I only see two answers? Maybe your looking at another thread?

I only see ''We do a simple game with little details'' or ''we do the trivia knowledge(but call it expert knowing ) with the important adaations of it's only a tiny bit of detail at one time and can only be done once in a while."

You sure do only see those two answers. In fact, you've gotten the following options:

1) We do a simple game with little details.
2) We do a game in which players are allowed to write details into the story instead of relying on the GM for everything.
3) We do a game in which players trust the GM to give them relevant details at relevant moments instead of pixel-b****ing their way through explanations, so they don't need to ask a lot of questions, just one or two at any given time.
4) We do a game in which players can safely ask two or three follow-up questions without every interaction devolving into a half-hour setting info dump.
5) We do a game in which players like exploring setting details, so we spend some time on it now and then.

The thing is, in your eyes, Options 2-5 are just "trivia knowledge", because you've never played with players who trust you for some strange reason, and if they did you would just take advantage of it to kill them.

BRC
2017-08-24, 01:04 PM
Do I understand correctly that you hate having player skills instead of character skills? Can you either explain why, or, if it'd take too long, do you perhaps have a previous explanation of why that you could point me to?

I can't speak for Grod, but for myself. In RPG's, the skills required of the player and the skills of the character are very different.

The CHARACTER should be skilled in using an axe. The PLAYER should be skilled in knowing when to use an axe, and when to use a bow. A Player doesn't need to know the best way to use an axe against somebody with a kite shield, but the Character's stats indicate how good they are with an axe.

Over reliance of Player skill leads to tedious gameplay. Instead of one search check to investigate a room, you're testing the player's ability to think of places to look. So you get a long string of "I check the drawers" "I check under the rug" "I check behind the paintings". A character who is supposed to be the ultimate investigator is only as good as their player's ability to think where their DM would hide things.

Over reliance on character skill saps most of the decision making from the game. Instead of a Player thinking up a good argument, and then making a check to deliver it, you just roll some dice and assume that whatever the Character said, it must have worked.

Ideally, you want some sort of happy medium between the two. One that gives the players proper control over their characters actions, but allows them to pretend to be good at what their character is good at, rather than what they are good at.


I hate it when players try to squeeze extra bonuses out of some real-world knowledge. Like, if a player actually knows fencing, that's awesome. If a player tries to get extra bonuses by pointing out which fencing techniques their character is using? That's annoying. If your character knows how to fence, that's built into their stats, and we assume they're using whatever techniques they think are best for a given scenario.

While you CAN get bonuses for being smart, a basic roll does not represent the stupidest way to do something.


...anyway.

One thing I try to remember when it comes to information is that, to the PLAYERS, this is a hobby, a few hours they spend every week or so with low stakes and good friends. The same brain that's remembering information about the game world is also trying to manage their busy lives.

The CHARACTERS on the other hand, have different priorities, this is their life. I'm not here to punish the players because they can't remember as much as their characters do.

So, if the characters have been warned that only elves may survive passing through the Elfgate, and they see an elaborate gate carved in elven runes with a pile of non-elven skeletons on the threshold, I'd be willing to remind them of that warning.

Unlike a knowledge check, which is testing things the character may have learned, anything told to the characters in-game is something we KNOW they've learned. Reminding them of it is fair, especially if I'm not trying to test their memory.


For Board Games and the like, I employ what I call The Notebook Rule. Any information that was ever revealed is freely available from that point forwards. If some player had a notebook, and anytime new information was revealed, they paused the game to write it down in painstaking detail, would they have access to that information. As I don't WANT to stop the game every time new information shows up, and as I'm not trying to test my player's memories, making information they've already learned freely available as it becomes relevant, is usually a good idea.

Talakeal
2017-08-24, 02:02 PM
In a game which is fifty percent combat and each combat has a fifty percent chance of death I can see why you wouldn't want to bother trying to keep IC and OOC knowledge sperate, the PC turnover must be incredible.

I get the feeling that Darth is exxagerating his position a bit to yank our chains, but taken at face value he actually seems a lot like my former DM. He runs his game in a very unconventional manner, believes that manner to be superior to other forms of gaming, and yet nobody, including himself, ever has fun at his games, then he rants about all the terrible players he has had over the years.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-08-24, 03:23 PM
Do I understand correctly that you hate having player skills instead of character skills? Can you either explain why, or, if it'd take too long, do you perhaps have a previous explanation of why that you could point me to?
I was mostly referring to the "survive only by trial-and-error and paranoia" and "one wrong choice=instant death" parts of the style. That being said, having character skills is very important for roleplaying as we use the term today. (Not necessarily for the old-school wargaming approach, though I think there's still uses for at least some stuff there). Otherwise I can never play a charismatic character, or a detective, or... anything, really. Ideally, I think, the balance breaks down something like this:

The players determine overall strategy solely by their own skills. "We should infiltrate the duke's party" is a strategic decision.
The players determine tactics primarily by their own skills, but can occasionally get hints based on their character's skills (This is one reason I like systems with a form of metagame currency like fate points; it lets you assess a cost for metagamey "my character would totally have ____" stuff). "We should disguise ourselves as caterers" is a tactical decision.
The characters and their mechanics are primarily responsible for carrying out said tactics, with the occasional small situational bonus for good ideas/descriptions from the players. "We put on starched white shirts and fake mustaches and fake french accents" is a character-based action.



One thing I try to remember when it comes to information is that, to the PLAYERS, this is a hobby, a few hours they spend every week or so with low stakes and good friends. The same brain that's remembering information about the game world is also trying to manage their busy lives.
Yeah, very much this. Much as I'd like to be, we ain't professional RPG players. I refuse to punish players in any way for not making my campaigns their number one priority.

Tinkerer
2017-08-24, 03:57 PM
I'm a little harsher than you guys on that front. Like with BRC if the characters received multiple warnings (as DA said) regarding the death gate AND there is a stack of non-elf bodies in front of it? Sorry but no reminder at that point, although I assume one of the players will probably stop you from going through. I can't really say that I've had much of a problem with people stopping the game to write things down either, aside from asking about the spelling on some words. Although most of the time I don't have a problem reminding players about a fact if it stops them from needing to look it up, the notes are mainly for their own good.

I also loathe when the characters try to use player knowledge in a fantasy world, sorry but you can't really use your physics degree much in a dimension where pi = 3 and the world is a disc balanced on the back of a tortoise. Or can you...

Quertus
2017-08-24, 07:35 PM
EDIT: This is a much more concise way of saying what I was trying to get at. Although on c I would refine that to they may ask any relevant follow-up questions at anytime, any tangential ones are best left until after the session.

The problem here is that, from a non-omniscient PoV, it is more difficult to determine which information is relevant. If your GM has given you reason to trust him in the past, you may just be able to assume that he's already given you all the plot relevant information, and you only need to worry about character relevant information, like, "gimme a line that the character said when he drew said sword - my character whoops it joyously upon seeing the item".

But, if the GM hasn't built that trust, or that GM likes players to go fishing for information, then it may take longer to establish what is and isn't important.


For me, it's because I'm me every day. I want to be someone else with a different skill set for a while, not "myself but arbitrarily different"

Hahaha, yes, there is a bit of that. But I think I'm trying to identify where people place the line / good places to place the line between "player skills" and "character sheets are buttons to push as your only interaction with the game". I, personally, am accustomed to high player skills games.


I can't speak for Grod, but for myself. In RPG's, the skills required of the player and the skills of the character are very different.

The CHARACTER should be skilled in using an axe. The PLAYER should be skilled in knowing when to use an axe, and when to use a bow. A Player doesn't need to know the best way to use an axe against somebody with a kite shield, but the Character's stats indicate how good they are with an axe.

Over reliance of Player skill leads to tedious gameplay. Instead of one search check to investigate a room, you're testing the player's ability to think of places to look. So you get a long string of "I check the drawers" "I check under the rug" "I check behind the paintings". A character who is supposed to be the ultimate investigator is only as good as their player's ability to think where their DM would hide things.

Over reliance on character skill saps most of the decision making from the game. Instead of a Player thinking up a good argument, and then making a check to deliver it, you just roll some dice and assume that whatever the Character said, it must have worked.

Ideally, you want some sort of happy medium between the two. One that gives the players proper control over their characters actions, but allows them to pretend to be good at what their character is good at, rather than what they are good at.


I hate it when players try to squeeze extra bonuses out of some real-world knowledge. Like, if a player actually knows fencing, that's awesome. If a player tries to get extra bonuses by pointing out which fencing techniques their character is using? That's annoying. If your character knows how to fence, that's built into their stats, and we assume they're using whatever techniques they think are best for a given scenario.

While you CAN get bonuses for being smart, a basic roll does not represent the stupidest way to do something.


...anyway.

One thing I try to remember when it comes to information is that, to the PLAYERS, this is a hobby, a few hours they spend every week or so with low stakes and good friends. The same brain that's remembering information about the game world is also trying to manage their busy lives.

The CHARACTERS on the other hand, have different priorities, this is their life. I'm not here to punish the players because they can't remember as much as their characters do.

So, if the characters have been warned that only elves may survive passing through the Elfgate, and they see an elaborate gate carved in elven runes with a pile of non-elven skeletons on the threshold, I'd be willing to remind them of that warning.

Unlike a knowledge check, which is testing things the character may have learned, anything told to the characters in-game is something we KNOW they've learned. Reminding them of it is fair, especially if I'm not trying to test their memory.


For Board Games and the like, I employ what I call The Notebook Rule. Any information that was ever revealed is freely available from that point forwards. If some player had a notebook, and anytime new information was revealed, they paused the game to write it down in painstaking detail, would they have access to that information. As I don't WANT to stop the game every time new information shows up, and as I'm not trying to test my player's memories, making information they've already learned freely available as it becomes relevant, is usually a good idea.

See above. To that, I'll add a few things.

First, I very much agree with your sword/bow and hobby/life breakdowns.

One person's engaging gameplay is another's tedium. It depends on the system, the player, and, for me, even the character, as to what level of detail is appropriate.

And I should point out that you've still got player skills in your search, but now they operate at a different level. Yes, you searched the room, but did you search the gutters? Did you know about the other house they own? Maybe they exist, but I've never been in a CSI-style game that just had "press search button to win", with no player skills required.

For the Elf Gate, it depends. If the GM didn't use description, but instead blatantly said "Elf Gates kill non elves" and later, "you see an Elf Gate", there's a little weird overloading of words that could cause a misunderstanding that wouldn't be present if, instead, they were taking about a Hephalump, but I'd call it a fair death if the character died there.

I'm mostly on the same page with your pet peeve, both from players trying to eek out bonuses that ought to be covered by standard use of the skill, and GMs who give penalties if you don't include every detail of basic competence in your descriptions. Which, of course, leaves me curious as to where you would leave room for player skills.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-08-24, 07:46 PM
Quertus, I'm not BRC, but my idea of player skills has more to do with scope--strategy vs tactics. Knowing what to do (of all the options)--player skill. Player skill comes from experience, mostly. Experience with the system, experience with the setting, experience with the DM.

Knowing how to execute the chosen plan in detail--character skill (stat/dice dependent). This is mechanical, and characters should be presumed competent (unless established otherwise). I assume that characters are not going to knowingly insult the king to his face unless the player says otherwise. Characters with the appropriate background will just know (no roll) the right forms of address in their home culture. Others might struggle (and incur disadvantage on any rolls needed).

Darth Ultron
2017-08-25, 08:26 AM
Its not limited to small bits of information infrequently, that is usually all it takes. Occasionally, a larger section of info is required. Once my GM had to spend 2-3 minutes talking about a weapon I had been carrying for the whole campaign, but misunderstood.

So you are saying most often in your game, only small bits of information are needed infrequently and that this amount is perfect for your game. Now, even to a neutral third part person, this sounds like your game is simple.

And I'm not sure why this provokes such a hostile reaction? So, even as you said, your game is simple. Yet somehow you think that is bad, and more so it's like a personal attack on you? But it is just different. My game is complex, your game is simple...neither is ''better''. I guess you'd say I ''sound'' a bad way...but I'd note the ''sound'' you hear when you read the text is in your own head. If you want to make it simple (no pun here, really), how about if I type anything ''bad'' I'll put it in Bold Red Italics, so you will ''know what I mean''.



Trivia: information of little or no use. Often associated with scattered bits of information. First off it is not of no use, we don't bother with the information that doesn't matter and only say important things. Scenes and the course of entire campaigns have been altered by these bits of information. So they are hardly trivia. Second they are not scattered, its not "oh I heard this once" but "out of the many things I know about this, this is the most relevant one right now".


Are you sure your not confusing ''Trivia'' with ''Trivial''? Most definitions say scattered bits of information, often of of little or no use (See Trivial). And you might note the use of ''often''. Often does not mean ''anyways, every time no matter what''. So that means there are times when trivia knowledge is not of little use.

And how is it not ''your character heard this once?'' are you only talking about knowledge checks? Or does your game not do the rule of an intelligence check for a character to remember something?


To be fair, from their post on their DMing style, I think I understand why Darth Ultron is so opposed to Knowledge skills doing anything:

They're running a Sierra game.

You know, one of the really old-school adventure games where doing the wrong thing could kill you (or otherwise ruin your playthrough) in an instant. You survive though being really paranoid, paying really close attention, and most of all through trial-and-error; it's all about the player's skill at doing those things. The character's skill doesn't enter into it, because that's not challenging.

Sierra Game? Yes! This is my type of game right here.




Having a Knowledge skill that tells you "don't say 'mud' in front of the swamp orcs, they'll get offended and kill you" is bad because it lets you bypass that trial-and-error. And by extension, so is having a Diplomacy skill that lets you make a welcoming speech without having to worry about saying "mud," and so is having a Perception skill that tells you there are spearmen in the bushes waiting for you to say "mud" without having to make a paranoid check to find them, and so is having a Heal skill that lets you treat the poison without having to remember that the barkeeper advised you to have mudroot with you in the swamp. In a sense, it's cheating-- you're putting in a code (skill points) to auto-win at a challenge (don't say "mud" to orcs).

I sure agree with that first one 100%. I hate the idea of a lazy casual player just dropping a d20 on the floor, getting a high roll (of course) and then it's like ''your character says and does everything right things and the swamp orcs welcome you as travelers. The group spends the night with the swamp orcs, and they provide food and directions to the Lost Temple of Doom. " Then the group follows the directions, and gets to the first temple combat encounter and it's like ''yes combat!" and the game rolls on.

And that is a perfect example of what I'd call skipping role play and wanting to get back to the roll play combat.

Though I'm fine with using Spot/Perception to check for an ambush...that does not take away from role playing. Though I'd still require the player to think of this all by themselves and make the check. I'd never do the odd ''roll a Perception check as your character who is smarter then you thinks they should check out the area for a possible ambush''.

And for Heal, I'm fine with the boring, bland check. But should the player remember (or have written down) the bit of lore about mudroot and got some and used it, they could get a +2 alchemical bonus to the check.

Well, cheating is a bit far.....It is really exactly more like just hitting ''next'' quickly whenever the video game throws text on the screen for you to read so you can get back to the combat.


In a game which is fifty percent combat and each combat has a fifty percent chance of death I can see why you wouldn't want to bother trying to keep IC and OOC knowledge sperate, the PC turnover must be incredible.

I get the feeling that Darth is exxagerating his position a bit to yank our chains, but taken at face value he actually seems a lot like my former DM. He runs his game in a very unconventional manner, believes that manner to be superior to other forms of gaming, and yet nobody, including himself, ever has fun at his games, then he rants about all the terrible players he has had over the years.

Well, the turnover is incredible. I'm not exaggerating at all about people crying or running from my house screaming.

My game is only ''unconventional'' to a younger gamer, or someone who has never played Old School D&D. I really don't get the ''modern way'' of gaming where you make a couple rolls to skip everything, then have combat for an half hour (but only three rounds of game time as the PC's always win by then), then skip some more 'other' stuff, then have combat for an half hour (but only three rounds of game time as the PC's always win by then), skip some more 'stuff' and have an hour BBEG fight (but only six rounds of game time as the PC's always win by then). But I've seen a lot of games like that.

I have tons of fun during a game....it's kind of the whole point. And, as a Old School DM I think of it as my job to make sure the players have fun. I do get plenty of ''bad'' players (really, does not every DM?)

PhoenixPhyre
2017-08-25, 08:59 AM
I do get plenty of ''bad'' players (really, does not every DM?)

I have only ever had one "bad" player--he was really immature and tried to play chaotic stupid. He lasted one session before the rest of the group told him to shove off. He probably would have improved over time, but no one else was willing to put up with him until then. And I play mostly with teenagers (who are notorious for being immature and "bad"). My adult players (who are all basically new to TTRPGs) are attentive, try hard to play in character, often talk their way through things and think of interactions that often surprise me, etc.

Your style of game is decidedly not to my taste. I find "gotcha" DMing or adversarial relationships between the DM and the players (not between the NPCs and the PCs, but between the real human beings) to be un-fun and counterproductive. Paranoia (unless you're playing the eponymous game) is boring, time-consuming, and no fun. Always wondering how the DM is going to destroy you if you can't read his mind exactly detracts from both immersion and (more importantly) fun. At least for me. YMMV.

Pelle
2017-08-25, 09:12 AM
For me, it's because I'm me every day. I want to be someone else with a different skill set for a while, not "myself but arbitrarily different"

"Challenge the characters, not the players" sounds to me like running a Monte Carlo simulation instead of playing a game with my friends. I want the players to make the decisions on behalf of the characters (player skill), and then the character skill can inform if the approach succeed or not. Roll Int to get a Clue must be the most boring way to run a mystery scenario. If player skill shouldn't matter, why bother playing at all instead of watching a movie?

PhoenixPhyre
2017-08-25, 09:32 AM
"Challenge the characters, not the players" sounds to me like running a Monte Carlo simulation instead of playing a game with my friends. I want the players to make the decisions on behalf of the characters (player skill), and then the character skill can inform if the approach succeed or not. Roll Int to get a Clue must be the most boring way to run a mystery scenario. If player skill shouldn't matter, why bother playing at all instead of watching a movie?

Player skill matters, but it's a different thing and requires a different approach to challenge than does character skill. Frankly, puzzles (especially ones that wouldn't work in the in-universe language), mysteries, and other such things require very careful handling. A character actually there would be able to see, hear, smell, etc. so much more than can be expressed through words. Often, attempts to challenge player skill come down to "guess exactly what I'm thinking or die." What is intuitive and obvious to the person who created it is not usually so obvious to other people.

The key point here is that TTRPGs depend on verbalized descriptions, and language is lossy. You're losing vital information that the characters would have (since they're really there). This loss of nuance goes both ways--players can't describe exactly how they talk to the NPC (because they don't actually speak that language nor are they part of that culture, so nuances and details get inevitably lost).

Challenges to player skill come at the level of choosing what action to take, not how to implement it in-universe. Characters should fail because a) their skills weren't good enough (character skill), b) random events were too much (not skill-related), or c) the player made a bad decision (player skill).

In a diplomatic context, the player skill is a) knowing not to try to intimidate the proud hot-tempered monarch and b) deciding to appeal to things the player knows that the monarch values (as opposed to things he hates). Character skill goes into just how persuasive these attempts turn out to be, including the exact wording/gestures/delivery + any random events (burping loudly maybe?).

Quertus
2017-08-25, 09:51 AM
having character skills is very important for roleplaying as we use the term today. (Not necessarily for the old-school wargaming approach, though I think there's still uses for at least some stuff there). Otherwise I can never play a charismatic character, or a detective, or... anything, really. Ideally, I think, the balance breaks down something like this:

The players determine overall strategy solely by their own skills. "We should infiltrate the duke's party" is a strategic decision.
The players determine tactics primarily by their own skills, but can occasionally get hints based on their character's skills (This is one reason I like systems with a form of metagame currency like fate points; it lets you assess a cost for metagamey "my character would totally have ____" stuff). "We should disguise ourselves as caterers" is a tactical decision.
The characters and their mechanics are primarily responsible for carrying out said tactics, with the occasional small situational bonus for good ideas/descriptions from the players. "We put on starched white shirts and fake mustaches and fake french accents" is a character-based action.



Quertus, I'm not BRC, but my idea of player skills has more to do with scope--strategy vs tactics. Knowing what to do (of all the options)--player skill. Player skill comes from experience, mostly. Experience with the system, experience with the setting, experience with the DM.

Knowing how to execute the chosen plan in detail--character skill (stat/dice dependent). This is mechanical, and characters should be presumed competent (unless established otherwise). I assume that characters are not going to knowingly insult the king to his face unless the player says otherwise. Characters with the appropriate background will just know (no roll) the right forms of address in their home culture. Others might struggle (and incur disadvantage on any rolls needed).

I'm seeing a pattern here...

Thanks. :smallgrin:


Yeah, very much this. Much as I'd like to be, we ain't professional RPG players. I refuse to punish players in any way for not making my campaigns their number one priority.

That would be the life! Making a living off profession:gamer.


Player skill matters, but it's a different thing and requires a different approach to challenge than does character skill. Frankly, puzzles (especially ones that wouldn't work in the in-universe language), mysteries, and other such things require very careful handling. A character actually there would be able to see, hear, smell, etc. so much more than can be expressed through words. Often, attempts to challenge player skill come down to "guess exactly what I'm thinking or die." What is intuitive and obvious to the person who created it is not usually so obvious to other people.

The key point here is that TTRPGs depend on verbalized descriptions, and language is lossy. You're losing vital information that the characters would have (since they're really there). This loss of nuance goes both ways--players can't describe exactly how they talk to the NPC (because they don't actually speak that language nor are they part of that culture, so nuances and details get inevitably lost).

Challenges to player skill come at the level of choosing what action to take, not how to implement it in-universe. Characters should fail because a) their skills weren't good enough (character skill), b) random events were too much (not skill-related), or c) the player made a bad decision (player skill).

In a diplomatic context, the player skill is a) knowing not to try to intimidate the proud hot-tempered monarch and b) deciding to appeal to things the player knows that the monarch values (as opposed to things he hates). Character skill goes into just how persuasive these attempts turn out to be, including the exact wording/gestures/delivery + any random events (burping loudly maybe?).

Have D&D "crossovers" with "modern" Earth not demonstrated that common is English yet? Serious question.

Puzzles that are tied to "or die" seem to have fallen out of fashion at most tables. It's more, "or take the harder route" these days. And not all puzzles have to be "guess what I'm thinking", either. I'm sorry if you've only ever experienced bad puzzle design.

And, for diplomacy, character player (oops) skill is also involved in choosing to find out that the monarch is proud and hot tempered, and choosing to find out what things said monarch values.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-08-25, 10:06 AM
Puzzles that are tied to "or die" seem to have fallen out of fashion at most tables. It's more, "or take the harder route" these days. And not all puzzles have to be "guess what I'm thinking", either. I'm sorry if you've only ever experienced bad puzzle design.

And, for diplomacy, character skill is also involved in choosing to find out that the monarch is proud and hot tempered, and choosing to find out what things said monarch values.

I've seen puzzles that relied on nuanced understandings and spellings of uncommon english words. I've seen ones that wouldn't work except in a decimal number system. I've never seen any that actually made sense in-universe except some where the answers were given if you investigated the surroundings. The bad puzzles are the ones where failure is blocking--you can't continue until/unless you solve them. That's why I said they need special handling and are hard.

For the diplomatic example, I think you meant player skill, not character skill (as I understand things). Yes, if the player doesn't take the time to find out things about the monarch, very little in the way of character skill will pull them through. On the flip side, if the player knows and targets the monarch's weaknesses, then you need less character skill.

Pelle
2017-08-25, 10:39 AM
Player skill matters, but it's a different thing and requires a different approach to challenge than does character skill. Frankly, puzzles (especially ones that wouldn't work in the in-universe language), mysteries, and other such things require very careful handling. A character actually there would be able to see, hear, smell, etc. so much more than can be expressed through words. Often, attempts to challenge player skill come down to "guess exactly what I'm thinking or die." What is intuitive and obvious to the person who created it is not usually so obvious to other people.


Sure, good points. I try to give my players clues and hints, that if the players are smart, they will understand and can utilize. Just rolling Int to get the answers directly would remove this aspect of the game and also the players' potential sense of accomplishment. I'm playing a game with my friends, not their characters, and if they are not challenged in any way I don't find it an interesting activity. If my players can look back at the hints and recognize that they should have guessed this and that, I haven't messed up completely. Giving the correct amount of information, so they can figure it out without knowing the answer already, is difficult of course. But I find it better to try, than just serve the answer.



In a diplomatic context, the player skill is a) knowing not to try to intimidate the proud hot-tempered monarch and b) deciding to appeal to things the player knows that the monarch values (as opposed to things he hates). Character skill goes into just how persuasive these attempts turn out to be, including the exact wording/gestures/delivery + any random events (burping loudly maybe?).

I agree with this. And on a) and b) I like to challenge my players skill, opposed to just rolling Cha for their character. I'm not sure if we actually disagree on anything here, but if the player is told "your character did/should do this in this situation, because your character is supposed to be smart/charismatic" it feels like railroading/mind-control to me. It's up to the player to have the character act smart if he wants it to be that.

Cluedrew
2017-08-25, 10:44 AM
So you are saying most often in your game, only small bits of information are needed infrequently and that this amount is perfect for your game. Now, even to a neutral third part person, this sounds like your game is simple.Did we get a neutral third party? Well I'm not sure if we can find one (almost everyone here will have an opinion already) so I will try something else. What do you mean simple?

The campaign I played the expert (or the most expert of my characters) there was an old warrior whose long history came up several times, two heads of organizations, one lead a small religion the other a group of nomads, and a hallucinating soldier who was victim to a conspiracy. That doesn't strike me as simple.

If we focus on setting complexity it gets better, that campaign mostly happened in the middle of the desert. But in another example we played in a more inhabited area, the languages changed, the culture and environmental history of the area all came up and played roles in the campaign. The same formula resulting in bits of information worked just fine there too.

Are they simple? What makes them simple?


And I'm not sure why this provokes such a hostile reaction?I'm not sure why you saw that as a hostile reaction.


And how is it not ''your character heard this once?'' are you only talking about knowledge checks? Or does your game not do the rule of an intelligence check for a character to remember something?Simple answer: Even if a skill says what you know, you get to decide how you know it. Hearing rumours is very different from studying the whole field of knowledge.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-08-25, 11:02 AM
I agree with this. And on a) and b) I like to challenge my players skill, opposed to just rolling Cha for their character. I'm not sure if we actually disagree on anything here, but if the player is told "your character did/should do this in this situation, because your character is supposed to be smart/charismatic" it feels like railroading/mind-control to me. It's up to the player to have the character act smart if he wants it to be that.

a) and b) should be entirely decided by the player. No rolls involved (unless they want to randomize something). I definitely give OOC warnings if they're about to unintentionally do something that the character would consider to be blatantly stupid--if a culture says that anyone who says "purple" is stoned, and the characters know it, then if a player says "purple" I'll ask for confirmation, stating that your character knows that that will get them attacked. If they still want to do it, they can. But they've been explicitly warned that they're doing something intentionally stupid. It's a more wordy variant of the classic "Are you sure?" trick.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-08-25, 11:04 AM
I sure agree with that first one 100%. I hate the idea of a lazy casual player just dropping a d20 on the floor, getting a high roll (of course) and then it's like ''your character says and does everything right things and the swamp orcs welcome you as travelers. The group spends the night with the swamp orcs, and they provide food and directions to the Lost Temple of Doom. " Then the group follows the directions, and gets to the first temple combat encounter and it's like ''yes combat!" and the game rolls on.
Sure, I agree that your strawman is pretty bad. Which is why we don't handle it that way-- it'll go more like
"I make a Knowledge Check. 23.
"Great. You're generally familiar with this general type of tribe. They split off from the nearby hordes a few generations ago; they're big on hospitality, but get really offended if you acknowledge that there's mud everywhere, so don't do that. Their welcome ceremonies involve lots of flattering each other's prowess."
"Ok. I call to the orcs, admiring their apparent skill at hunting."


And that is a perfect example of what I'd call skipping role play and wanting to get back to the roll play combat.
"I roll Diplomacy to talk to the orcs; 19" is not great. "I make a welcoming speech, flattering their skills at hunting and war and their lovely, bulging muscles; 19."


Well, the turnover is incredible. I'm not exaggerating at all about people crying or running from my house screaming.
If you literally have people running away screaming, you're proooobably doing something wrong, in your presentation or bearing if nothing else.


My game is only ''unconventional'' to a younger gamer, or someone who has never played Old School D&D. I really don't get the ''modern way'' of gaming where you make a couple rolls to skip everything, then have combat for an half hour (but only three rounds of game time as the PC's always win by then), then skip some more 'other' stuff, then have combat for an half hour (but only three rounds of game time as the PC's always win by then), skip some more 'stuff' and have an hour BBEG fight (but only six rounds of game time as the PC's always win by then). But I've seen a lot of games like that.
Great! Because that's not how any game I've ever played has worked. You understand that there's a middle ground between "I roll to do the stuff with the orcs" and "all mental/social aspects played out in exhaustive detail with no imput from character stats," right?


I do get plenty of ''bad'' players (really, does not every DM?)
Never in one I've run, and only rarely in ones I've played. (Maybe... two, three guys in the last ten years?). I've had people who never understood the rules, or who were shy about speaking up, or


That would be the life! Making a living off profession:gamer.
If Will Wheaton can do it, why can't I? (Grumble grumble)

Pelle
2017-08-25, 11:06 AM
a) and b) should be entirely decided by the player. No rolls involved (unless they want to randomize something). I definitely give OOC warnings if they're about to unintentionally do something that the character would consider to be blatantly stupid--if a culture says that anyone who says "purple" is stoned, and the characters know it, then if a player says "purple" I'll ask for confirmation, stating that your character knows that that will get them attacked. If they still want to do it, they can. But they've been explicitly warned that they're doing something intentionally stupid. It's a more wordy variant of the classic "Are you sure?" trick.

Seems like we more or less agree then. It was mostly the sentiment "this is a hobby, I don't want to be challenged" (i.e. a) and b) in your case) I was reacting to.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-08-25, 11:12 AM
Seems like we more or less agree then. It was mostly the sentiment "this is a hobby, I don't want to be challenged" (i.e. a) and b) in your case) I was reacting to.

If I came across that way, I'm sorry. It was not intentional. I like challenge, but I like fair challenge that makes sense. Or is fun. Gotcha DMing or puzzles (etc) that require you to read the DM's mind meet neither of those criteria for me. Everything in its own sphere--"pixel-hunting" works well when reloading a game is easy and the scene is static and everything is visible if you know where to look. Doing the analogue of that in a TTRPG is painful because there's no save to reload, and all the player can see is what the DM tells them (and then, interpretations can differ because language is ambiguous). These scenarios come across as sadistic--the DM enjoying watching people struggle and suffer.

BRC
2017-08-25, 11:25 AM
Seems like we more or less agree then. It was mostly the sentiment "this is a hobby, I don't want to be challenged" (i.e. a) and b) in your case) I was reacting to.

The "This is a Hobby" thing was mostly about testing your players ability to memorize world details or maintain specific details between sessions. Punishing your players for not remembering something you told them two weeks ago, especially if it's only been a day or two in-game.

Quertus
2017-08-25, 01:01 PM
I've seen puzzles that relied on nuanced understandings and spellings of uncommon english words. I've seen ones that wouldn't work except in a decimal number system.

Published modules that rely on puns etc in English are part of why I've taken to believing that D&D common is English. I've played in games that relied on the GM's misspellings. Although I've used puzzles that required a different base to solve, it's never struck me as strange before that math-based puzzles usually require a base 10 number system.


I've never seen any that actually made sense in-universe

I may have to give you that one. :smallsad:


The bad puzzles are the ones where failure is blocking--you can't continue until/unless you solve them. That's why I said they need special handling and are hard.

Different type of bad - IIRC, I was referring to the difference between a puzzle that you can usually figure out (like, I hope, "wtf did Quertus mean?") Vs ones that seem to require reading the GMs mind


For the diplomatic example, I think you meant player skill, not character skill (as I understand things).

Yes, that's what I meant. :smallredface: Fixed.

Sir Chuckles
2017-08-25, 06:32 PM
One thing I've noticed throughout Darth Ultron's threads is that they actively encourage what we would call meta-gaming. That Knowledge skills are useless in their games because there is no divide between player and character. You can see it in their comments about their inability to understand how a player who does not know much about the setting can play a character who does.

And that's usually the source of a lot of the disagreements between the board at large and their house rules and playstyle. It doesn't help that, while they describe their setting as having a large amount of fluff, they have, in the past, claimed that much of the setting information is inconsequential to the point of being a red herring.

Quertus
2017-08-25, 07:41 PM
One thing I've noticed throughout Darth Ultron's threads is that they actively encourage what we would call meta-gaming. That Knowledge skills are useless in their games because there is no divide between player and character. You can see it in their comments about their inability to understand how a player who does not know much about the setting can play a character who does.

And that's usually the source of a lot of the disagreements between the board at large and their house rules and playstyle. It doesn't help that, while they describe their setting as having a large amount of fluff, they have, in the past, claimed that much of the setting information is inconsequential to the point of being a red herring.

I may be mistaken here, but, while I agree with your assessment that DU dislikes knowledge skills and encourages metagaming, I disagree that this is the source of the majority of the points of contention between DU and others.

IME, his belief that everything is either railroading or completely random was a much larger point of contention than his stance on metagaming, for example.

Satinavian
2017-08-26, 05:11 AM
I've seen puzzles that relied on nuanced understandings and spellings of uncommon english words. I've seen ones that wouldn't work except in a decimal number system. I've never seen any that actually made sense in-universe except some where the answers were given if you investigated the surroundings. The bad puzzles are the ones where failure is blocking--you can't continue until/unless you solve them. That's why I said they need special handling and are hard.While i havent't played an RPG that said Common is English, i have played a couple that specified language XY is Latin. And i have seen Latin only handouts and riddles in Latin or based on Latin.

Otherwise, to craft riddles that make sense in game, you need fleshed out settings. E.G. once i was player in a module with a riddle based on stars and constellations. And not earhern constellations but ones of the campaign setting, spezified in a chapter about astronomy and astrology in some pretty obsure supplementory setting book which had starcharts and lists of associated attributes/meanings of constellations. In other cases i have seen riddles based on minor details of the life of some (minor) Saint, who had been mentioned in the history chapter of a regional supplement.
Of course you can (and should) provide those details based on rolls. But it can be nice to have such riddles for those players who really are into deep immersion and read/remember ridiculous amounts of setting details.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-26, 11:24 AM
I just timed that and the response took about 30 seconds to read.

Right, so 30 seconds per knowledge check, so a couple minutes. Plus you have the problem I noted before: more details are needed for each answer paragraph, or they are useless. So it quickly becomes the ''stop the game and ask and answer questions.



I do find it difficult to believe that you run into as many incompetent players as you mention. And I find it odd that you seem to delight in bringing them to tears and chasing them away from the hobby (I certainly hope that was hyperbole). Several of the worst players that I've run across wound up becoming the best players I've seen, mainly due to being able to assist them when they're learning. I kill many characters (roughly 1 every 4-5 sessions) due to playing a highly lethal system and I can't say that I've seen one go fleeing from my table as a result.

Well, guess you'd have to know me. Plenty of the problem players do eventual come around and become good players....sone don't.



Your style of game is decidedly not to my taste. I find "gotcha" DMing or adversarial relationships between the DM and the players (not between the NPCs and the PCs, but between the real human beings) to be un-fun and counterproductive. Paranoia (unless you're playing the eponymous game) is boring, time-consuming, and no fun. Always wondering how the DM is going to destroy you if you can't read his mind exactly detracts from both immersion and (more importantly) fun. At least for me. YMMV.

Not really sure where you see "gotcha DMing or adversarial DMing". Like where I said the player has the character charge a group of foes where they are outnumbered and outmatched? That is the players choice, 100%. The smart thing to do would have been to have the character get away and go back and get the rest of the group...and then attack the foes. I agree paranoia is not good, but then I'm not going for that: I'm going for careful, thoughtful gaming.


If the player is told "your character did/should do this in this situation, because your character is supposed to be smart/charismatic" it feels like railroading/mind-control to me. It's up to the player to have the character act smart if he wants it to be that.

That is a bit amazing: I've never seen Roll Playing described as Railroading....what an idea!




Are they simple? What makes them simple?


I feel like this would need it's own thread....


Sure, I agree that your strawman is pretty bad. Which is why we don't handle it that way-- it'll go more like
"I make a Knowledge Check. 23.
"Great. You're generally familiar with this general type of tribe. They split off from the nearby hordes a few generations ago; they're big on hospitality, but get really offended if you acknowledge that there's mud everywhere, so don't do that. Their welcome ceremonies involve lots of flattering each other's prowess."
"Ok. I call to the orcs, admiring their apparent skill at hunting."

Well, look at that. A simple vs complex example and it is exactly what I'm talking about. The swamp orcs have just one taboo offensive thing that the DM helpfully tells the player. So the simple game has just one thing. A complex game has many, many, many things. The Swamp Orcs of the Dark Swamp seem a bit silly if they only have one taboo offensive thing, like they are some cardboard cut outs for a game. More complex Swamp Orcs, ones that felt more ''real'', would have much more of a personality and society then that. So they would have more like a dozen or more such things.

Now sure there is the odd hostile reaction where someone would say in reaction ''Oh, well my Swamp Orcs are super complex and have like 25 taboo offensive things!". But, of course, note the example only gives one. So, guess it would be another 24 knowledge checks for each one? Either way, to have the DM say 25 detailed things is stopping the game for several minutes for that to happen. And even talking all that time still only gives the player knowledge about one narrow topic.



If you literally have people running away screaming, you're proooobably doing something wrong, in your presentation or bearing if nothing else.

I see it as a good thing myself.



Great! Because that's not how any game I've ever played has worked. You understand that there's a middle ground between "I roll to do the stuff with the orcs" and "all mental/social aspects played out in exhaustive detail with no imput from character stats," right?

Well, sure my way is the middle way.


The "This is a Hobby" thing was mostly about testing your players ability to memorize world details or maintain specific details between sessions. Punishing your players for not remembering something you told them two weeks ago, especially if it's only been a day or two in-game.

I have a great memory and can recall little details about ''my hobby''. But I don't expect all players to have such good memories. But I do encourage the taking of notes for this very reason (I even take notes...)


One thing I've noticed throughout Darth Ultron's threads is that they actively encourage what we would call meta-gaming.

No need to ''notice'', I've come right out and said it. The player that has the book Races of the Wild, and they are free to have their character know all the fluff in the book and use it in the game.

Sir Chuckles
2017-08-27, 12:35 AM
No need to ''notice'', I've come right out and said it. The player that has the book Races of the Wild, and they are free to have their character know all the fluff in the book and use it in the game.

And that's really, really weird since it runs wholly counter to the idea that you're a "storyteller" DM and not a "roll player". Metagaming is a hallmark of a player who doesn't care about roleplay.

Also, you've contradicted yourself:

Sierra Game? Yes! This is my type of game right here.

I agree paranoia is not good, but then I'm not going for that: I'm going for careful, thoughtful gaming.

Sierra style is paranoid style. And, since you do that while also constantly changing things at the drop of a hat or purposely misinforming players - something that you have admitted to doing - you are a "Gotcha" and adversarial DM that puts Gygax instant death traps to shame.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-27, 11:22 AM
And that's really, really weird since it runs wholly counter to the idea that you're a "storyteller" DM and not a "roll player". Metagaming is a hallmark of a player who doesn't care about roleplay.

I guess your defining Metagaming as only crunchy rules stuff then? Like reading a book and then saying ''haha the ruler only has an AC of 12, I attack!".



Also, you've contradicted yourself:

Well...no. Sierra game is a question, as I have never head that term before. And the Yes it's my game is based of Grod's description.




Sierra style is paranoid style. And, since you do that while also constantly changing things at the drop of a hat or purposely misinforming players - something that you have admitted to doing - you are a "Gotcha" and adversarial DM that puts Gygax instant death traps to shame.

Well, no, as I said ''Sierra'' is not my style. I think that style sucks.

Guess my style is just so different and unique that it does not fit into your limited descriptions.

I don't want players to be paranoid. In fact, such a jerk player won't be welcome in my group for long(assuming they lied to get in the group in the first place). Like as soon as the player goes into full jerk mode and is like ''No! My character hides under his bed and does not leave his house! I know that as soon as my character leaves the house, and enters the Dark Forest of Doom, the DM will have a monster attack my character!" Yea, I don't play with that sort of jerk player.

Change things check, and misinform characters check. Though, during the game play the players information about the game is limited to the character's information about the game. It's kinda complex to understand.

''Gotcha'' just seems to simple for what I do, and I do give plenty of warnings and ''outs'' to the players. So it's more really ''told you so'' or ''you should have seen that coming''. Like the characters (and players) will be warned like 25 times that ''only and elf can safely touch the elven Crown of Trees''. Then player Bob has his gnome thief Rop ''grab the Crown of Trees and put it in his backback " I'd be like ''sigh, rolls a Fort save'' and when that fails polymorph Rop into a tree. ''Gotcha'' is more like when the player says ''Rop walks down the road and turns left..." and the DM is like "Left? Yes! Gotcha! Rocks fall on Rop and he dies!"

And ''adversarial'' is not the right word because as DM I'm playing the game with the players and for the players, so that everyone has fun. Adversarial would be more like ''monsters attack and your characters all die and I win! Hahahah!"

Tinkerer
2017-08-28, 11:49 AM
Right, so 30 seconds per knowledge check, so a couple minutes. Plus you have the problem I noted before: more details are needed for each answer paragraph, or they are useless. So it quickly becomes the ''stop the game and ask and answer questions.


... How many knowledge checks are your players trying to make?

But this is still information that the players are receiving eventually. If this is information which you say will come out while playing then allowing the players to know it in advance gives them far more resources and options for how to deal with the subject. For instance going back to The Brotherhood of Crossed Flames the players now know that the Brotherhood is 1) a destruction magic heavy group 2) a far reaching conspiracy 3) A moderately reliable way of identifying it's members (at least it's minions) 4) No fewer than 5 different ways of being able to track down their activities. How is this information "useless"?

Additionally am I correct in assuming that there are no libraries in your world? No research which can be done? I would have to assume that none of the characters ever read a book since if they did you would either have to summarize the information, which you made it clear that you hate, or you would have to stop and recite the entire book to them unabridged... Actually how DO you handle books?

When a player makes a knowledge/lore/history check they only make one check (with some exceptions). I jot down the result on their quick reference card and they jot down the result on that section of their notes. I give them a quick breakdown of the most vital and immediate facts as well as informing them of what areas of the topic their character is familiar with. This leaves them with things which they can act on without wasting their time on specifics which they aren't going to use. For instance if I mention that they know the identity of a Brotherhood agent in the area and they don't wind up needing to go to them it would be a waste of everyone's time to fully describe the what and the how and the why of that character. I mention that they know an agent in the area and describe him if they choose to seek him out.

The only time that it's ever (in over 25 years) turned into a game of 20 questions is during in depth planning sections such as heist preparations where everyone is asking a million questions anyways (seriously my players love those but I just get so tired during them).

On the subject of meta-gaming one of the big reason that it's viewed as bad role-playing is when Jim-Joe the Farmer from the middle of nowhere knows the intimate details of the secret sect of rat people who live under the sewers in the capital. Which appears to be what you're advocating.

Satinavian
2017-08-28, 12:06 PM
''Gotcha'' just seems to simple for what I doBut from your other posts it seems like you are that kind of DM. Probably one of the worse examples actually. If i would consider joining a group and the DM would say even a fifth of the stuff your players seem to agree before the game, i would say, "No, thanks. Good luck with that" and leave.

But maybe, maybe you are not a really bad DM. Maybe you are only very bad at explaining what you do. Maybe you should get one of your players explain your gaming style to the playground.

Sir Chuckles
2017-08-28, 09:23 PM
Well...no. Sierra game is a question, as I have never head that term before. And the Yes it's my game is based of Grod's description.

Well, no, as I said ''Sierra'' is not my style. I think that style sucks.

Ok, you have to be doing this on purpose.

And for emphasis:

Sierra Game? Yes! This is my type of game right here.

Well, no, as I said ''Sierra'' is not my style. I think that style sucks.

Mordaedil
2017-08-29, 01:21 AM
So what time chamber did Darth_Ultron dig himself out of? It seems strange to see anyone here in TYOOL 2017 who has never run into these terms before when they are extremely ubiquitos in our gaming sub-culture.

Like, Sierra game was a term coined in the 90's to separate them from LucasArts style adventure games where death was impossible.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-29, 07:26 AM
... How many knowledge checks are your players trying to make?

A couple?



But this is still information that the players are receiving eventually. If this is information which you say will come out while playing then allowing the players to know it in advance gives them far more resources and options for how to deal with the subject. For instance going back to The Brotherhood of Crossed Flames the players now know that the Brotherhood is 1) a destruction magic heavy group 2) a far reaching conspiracy 3) A moderately reliable way of identifying it's members (at least it's minions) 4) No fewer than 5 different ways of being able to track down their activities. How is this information "useless"?

If a player is told something like ''it is a far reaching conspiracy'' that is basically useless information unless they know ''how far''. Sure they can just say ''they are everywhere'' and put on a tin foil hat, but they will need more details. And like if they ''know the group is in to destruction'' the question is, ok...what did they destroy?



Additionally am I correct in assuming that there are no libraries in your world? No research which can be done? I would have to assume that none of the characters ever read a book since if they did you would either have to summarize the information, which you made it clear that you hate, or you would have to stop and recite the entire book to them unabridged... Actually how DO you handle books?

Lots of libraries in my world, I'm a bibliophile. And yes, research can be done. As I've said before I encourage such behavior, either the player reading stuff on their own or even e-mailing me any time we are not playing the game.

For books I do it by E-mail. I have tons of documents to send. Plus tons of ones from websites like Wizards. Also, I will have the player read a real book, or at least a chapter.



When a player makes a knowledge/lore/history check they only make one check (with some exceptions). I jot down the result on their quick reference card and they jot down the result on that section of their notes. I give them a quick breakdown of the most vital and immediate facts as well as informing them of what areas of the topic their character is familiar with. This leaves them with things which they can act on without wasting their time on specifics which they aren't going to use. For instance if I mention that they know the identity of a Brotherhood agent in the area and they don't wind up needing to go to them it would be a waste of everyone's time to fully describe the what and the how and the why of that character. I mention that they know an agent in the area and describe him if they choose to seek him out.

That seems odd. You know an agent lives in nearby and know where he lives and who he is....but you don't tell the player? And they don't say "Um, DM if I know where this guy lives...um, where does he live?"



On the subject of meta-gaming one of the big reason that it's viewed as bad role-playing is when Jim-Joe the Farmer from the middle of nowhere knows the intimate details of the secret sect of rat people who live under the sewers in the capital. Which appears to be what you're advocating.

It is. And Edgar the player can even get a ton of bonus XP for his character by not only taking the time to know that information, but also coming up with an in game story of how his character knows that information(''Well, may dad was once a sewer worker in the capital city and...")


But from your other posts it seems like you are that kind of DM. Probably one of the worse examples actually. If i would consider joining a group and the DM would say even a fifth of the stuff your players seem to agree before the game, i would say, "No, thanks. Good luck with that" and leave.

But maybe, maybe you are not a really bad DM. Maybe you are only very bad at explaining what you do. Maybe you should get one of your players explain your gaming style to the playground.

As I have said, plenty of players do not want to play in my game. And most of what I say is taken out of context or people just have a crazy knee jerk reaction too.


Ok, you have to be doing this on purpose.


Ok, so that was a phone post...and it is hard for me to make long posts on my phone ok?

I will re type it long style so it makes sense to you:

Sierra Game? I have never before heard of the style of gaming what is it?


You know, one of the really old-school adventure games where doing the wrong thing could kill you (or otherwise ruin your playthrough) in an instant. You survive though being really paranoid, paying really close attention, and most of all through trial-and-error; it's all about the player's skill at doing those things. The character's skill doesn't enter into it, because that's not challenging.

Yes! This is my type of game right here, everything except for that stupid paranoid part. There are no stupid paranoid players in my game, I don't allow them. I want careful, intelligent thinking player...not jerks that sit at the end of the table, cross their arms and are like ''No my character hides under his bed and does not go to the Forest of Doom! If my character leaves his house the DM will attack him! Waaaaa!" This paranoid jerk player will not be in my game for long (like minutes maybe).


So what time chamber did Darth_Ultron dig himself out of? It seems strange to see anyone here in TYOOL 2017 who has never run into these terms before when they are extremely ubiquitos in our gaming sub-culture.

Like, Sierra game was a term coined in the 90's to separate them from LucasArts style adventure games where death was impossible.

It is that old? Though I don't know what LucasArts is either (Like does George Lucas make art, like I don't know finger paints, and sell them? Or is this some other ''Lucas''?

I don't even know what TYOOL is. I know Tool is an awesome band (''Pushing and shoving and pushing and shoving"). And I checked my ''Parents guide to Secret Teen Text'' and TYOOL is not listed their either.

2D8HP
2017-08-29, 01:05 PM
To borrow a turn of phrase here, back when I had a younger and more agile mind....


That phrase sounds familiar somehow.....


....I memorized the rules back when I had a young and agile mind..


Wherever the phrase came from, it fits most excellently, well done!

:amused:


...See, I'm a war gamer. Very few GMs can actually present properly challenging scenarios to a war gamer in an RPG. And you know what? You don't want them to. Because a properly challenging combat scenario should, if taken to its conclusion*, have a 50% chance of a TPK.....

* this means no-one surrenders, runs away, etc.


FWIW, I do remember playing D&D with those odds. Transitioning to Call of Cthullu, and Paranoia wasn't hard.


So what time chamber did Darth_Ultron dig himself out of? It seems strange to see anyone here in TYOOL 2017 who has never run into these terms before when they are extremely ubiquitos in our gaming sub-culture.

Like, Sierra game was a term coined in the 90's to separate them from LucasArts style adventure games where death was impossible.


I too was ignorant of the term "Sierra game" until reading it in this thread, but my table-top game playing was from 1978 to 1992, and then re-starting in 2014, and I haven't played any video games after the mid-80's, except for the 3 or 4 times my son begged my to play car racing and Naruto games with him this last decade, so I've missed a lot,


...I don't even know what TYOOL is....


I'm guessing that TYOOL means the same as "Anno Domini", or "Common Era".

Tinkerer
2017-08-29, 05:34 PM
A couple?
If a player is told something like ''it is a far reaching conspiracy'' that is basically useless information unless they know ''how far''. Sure they can just say ''they are everywhere'' and put on a tin foil hat, but they will need more details. And like if they ''know the group is in to destruction'' the question is, ok...what did they destroy?

The details of all of that is laid out in the original quote that I had posted. They know that it is worldwide and that the Brotherhood doesn't hold any sway in the province that they are currently in and in one other province in this country they seem to have some level of governmental control. I also don't know where you got the "know the group is in to destruction" quote from, what I said was that they literally worship destruction itself.


Lots of libraries in my world, I'm a bibliophile. And yes, research can be done. As I've said before I encourage such behavior, either the player reading stuff on their own or even e-mailing me any time we are not playing the game.


For books I do it by E-mail. I have tons of documents to send. Plus tons of ones from websites like Wizards. Also, I will have the player read a real book, or at least a chapter.

Great, I do a similar thing. The question is if someone reads a book while the group is camped for the night do you stop the game for several hours while the player stops and reads? Do you say "Sorry you can't read that book right now?" I also won't punish someone by making them illiterate if they don't have the time in their normal work week to spend reading another book. It's an offer to enrich their experience not a requirement.


That seems odd. You know an agent lives in nearby and know where he lives and who he is....but you don't tell the player? And they don't say "Um, DM if I know where this guy lives...um, where does he live?"

Not if it's not relevant information at that moment. I mean they just found the symbol of The Brotherhood, it's probably a pretty stressful time. It stops the game and wastes everyone's time. What possible reason would I have for telling them the address if it doesn't add anything to that particular moment? If they decide to seek it out then it's relevant and then I should spend the time telling them. But if they're going up against the Brotherhood they might just decide to skip the agent and the area and head to Thatprovince where they have a level of government control and is most likely where their leadership in this nation is. I mean they rolled a 40 so their levels are probably around high teens (assuming D&D). Why piss around with the local agent in a nowhere province when you can go for the head?


It is. And Edgar the player can even get a ton of bonus XP for his character by not only taking the time to know that information, but also coming up with an in game story of how his character knows that information(''Well, may dad was once a sewer worker in the capital city and...")

*shrug* To each their own on this one. I think it's completely immersion breaking when characters know things like the deep dark secrets of the gods ("Well my uncle was actually an Old One who watched the universe come into being...").

FreddyNoNose
2017-08-29, 07:15 PM
Having an expert character in games poses no problem.

In a gaming session there are rarely more than handful of knowledge rolls and often it's a direct, specific question, like "what do I know about wraiths? Do they have any weaknesses?"

Stopping the "action" to answer questions about the world is one of the GM's jobs and most GM's should be happy to have engaged players who stop to ask questions to learn more about the world.

In fact I often do recaps during play as my games can get complicated with lots of intertwined plots. So if the players ask for a recap or refreshing their memories helps the game to progress I'm happy to oblige.


Of course I'm not saddled with idiot players that turn my gaming sessions into ask RazorChain about anything, so experience may vary.

What about questions like: What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

2D8HP
2017-08-29, 07:59 PM
....
*shrug* To each their own on this one. I think it's completely immersion breaking when characters know things like the deep dark secrets of the gods ("Well my uncle was actually an Old One who watched the universe come into being...").


Most DM's/GM's want you to read their lovingly made "setting book", and then play-act out one of the inhabitants that they've detailed, which is what I don't want to do.

May I have a Parsival like naif from an isolated village, or a Conan like foreigner PC, and explore the setting in play, ala Quertus?

Please?




What about questions like: What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?


What do you mean, African of European?

Darth Ultron
2017-08-29, 08:40 PM
The details of all of that is laid out in the original quote that I had posted. They know that it is worldwide and that the Brotherhood doesn't hold any sway in the province that they are currently in and in one other province in this country they seem to have some level of governmental control. I also don't know where you got the "know the group is in to destruction" quote from, what I said was that they literally worship destruction itself.

Your paragraph is full of just vagueness. Like when you say ''oh they hold sway in the one other place'', but don't name the place? And when you do name the place you then have to tell the players about it. You can't just say ''they are powerful in the Dark, Dammed Land of Zolt'' and then just cut off right there and be like ''oh, your character knows nothing about that land''.




Great, I do a similar thing. The question is if someone reads a book while the group is camped for the night do you stop the game for several hours while the player stops and reads? Do you say "Sorry you can't read that book right now?" I also won't punish someone by making them illiterate if they don't have the time in their normal work week to spend reading another book. It's an offer to enrich their experience not a requirement.

No, thought I was clear that ''read'' must be done outside the game. If a player did want to stop and read a book mid game, they can sure leave and go home and read.

I know some people ''can't read a book'', but mostly I'm going for chapters or short stories or articles. Though I don't buy the ''don't have time'' thing. I know this is just an excuse for the player to be a casual lazy player. For me this is right up there with a player saying ''dude I did not have time to read the game rules, like I'll just roll a d20 and you tell me what my character does."




Not if it's not relevant information at that moment. I mean they just found the symbol of The Brotherhood, it's probably a pretty stressful time. It stops the game and wastes everyone's time. What possible reason would I have for telling them the address if it doesn't add anything to that particular moment? If they decide to seek it out then it's relevant and then I should spend the time telling them.

This is the tricky ''you pick what is relevant'' though.



*shrug* To each their own on this one. I think it's completely immersion breaking when characters know things like the deep dark secrets of the gods ("Well my uncle was actually an Old One who watched the universe come into being...").

Guess it is a good think the average RPG book does not have ''the deep dark secrets of the gods''.

JNAProductions
2017-08-29, 08:51 PM
So, players are 2 hours into a 4 hour session. They've discovered some clues, but need to do research to put the information they have together. They, therefore, head to a library, to get more info. What do you do?

In addition, you said yourself you don't know your players very well. Why is it impossible for them to be busy outside D&D? Maybe they have a crazy schedule, but they love TTRPGs so much that they make time for an actual session. Hell, they even make time to make their characters and update them in between working three jobs, looking after a family, and sleeping. But that still doesn't leave them time to read a literal book.

Now, if you played with people you KNEW BETTER, then you'd be more able to call BS on them not having time. Because you know them.

Pelle
2017-08-30, 03:30 AM
So what time chamber did Darth_Ultron dig himself out of? It seems strange to see anyone here in TYOOL 2017 who has never run into these terms before when they are extremely ubiquitos in our gaming sub-culture.

Like, Sierra game was a term coined in the 90's to separate them from LucasArts style adventure games where death was impossible.

I've never heard them. Sierra sounds like a Ford.

Quertus
2017-08-30, 03:48 AM
So what time chamber did Darth_Ultron dig himself out of? It seems strange to see anyone here in TYOOL 2017 who has never run into these terms before when they are extremely ubiquitos in our gaming sub-culture.

Like, Sierra game was a term coined in the 90's to separate them from LucasArts style adventure games where death was impossible.

I've heard of "Sierra Games", probably (breifly) played a few of their titles, but I didn't know that die reload repeat get good noob memorization was so endemic to their brand as to become inexorably linked to their brand name. Possibly because I hate that style of video game too much to purchase such games for me to independently make that connection.


Most DM's/GM's want you to read their lovingly made "setting book", and then play-act out one of the inhabitants that they've detailed, which is what I don't want to do.

May I have a Parsival like naif from an isolated village, or a Conan like foreigner PC, and explore the setting in play, ala Quertus?

If I, otoh, am to be known for one thing, there are a lot worse options than a love of exploration, and my "not from around here" method of maximizing the potential to explore a setting. :smallcool:

By all means, make my (character's/screen) name synonymous with exploring a setting in play, especially as a foreigner!

Mordaedil
2017-08-30, 05:11 AM
I'm probably not the best source for frame of reference for what is general consensus of what is known by the average consumer, given that I studied games for three-four years and am basically what amounts to a video game historian.

Still, I'm happy to spread knowledge about such things, cause I forget that I have that background.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-30, 07:52 AM
So, players are 2 hours into a 4 hour session. They've discovered some clues, but need to do research to put the information they have together. They, therefore, head to a library, to get more info. What do you do?

Easy. The Library is not a boring, dull ''roll a d20 to know'' , it will be an Encounter, most often an official planned one. As A good DM, I know that eventually the players will think ''Hey, we should head over the Vault of Knowledge'' , and I have an encounter (or three) ready for that spot. And the encounter, assuming they succeed, will get the answers/hints/stuff they are looking for in the library.

To take a Library Encounter from a game just two weeks ago: The characters go to the Library of Knowledge to discover...a wild magic spell effect has caused some of the books to ''come to life and manifest as creatures. " (I got this awesome idea from the Librarians TV show) So the players had to catch each creature (but not kill them) and put them back in the book (Ghostbuster Style). And each one caught and put back gave the characters the answers/hints/stuff they are looking for in the library. And like most of my planned encounters it is very carefully designed so all the players and all the characters have to work together to succeed.

I am, and always been a big fan of ''everything is an Encounter'' and not the ''well the game is like an hour of boring stuff and then we have fun combat!''. I know a lot of games, maybe even most games do the ''you roll to read a book at the library'' or ''roll to go shopping'' and such, but that is not my game.



In addition, you said yourself you don't know your players very well. Why is it impossible for them to be busy outside D&D? Maybe they have a crazy schedule, but they love TTRPGs so much that they make time for an actual session. Hell, they even make time to make their characters and update them in between working three jobs, looking after a family, and sleeping. But that still doesn't leave them time to read a literal book.

Now, if you played with people you KNEW BETTER, then you'd be more able to call BS on them not having time. Because you know them.

Well, your mixing stranger players with players I know. Of course, someone is only a 'stranger' once....but after a couple games you get to know the person.

Still, I do not buy the ''my life is crazy busy'' line. Should a player tell that to me, I'll just say ''well, your life is so busy you can't play this game''. Again, I don't like casual gamers that just show up, roll a d20 and are like ''wozers, this game is so cool, did I win yet?"

And there are other, casual games, for such casual players. Where he can show up and the DM will be like ''ok, you guys fight a dragon!" and the players cheer and roll some dice and just do random stuff as no one knows the rules anyway. And a couple minutes later the DM says ''you guys kill the dragon!" And everyone cheers again. And, look, this type of game is just fine....but it is not my type of game.

JNAProductions
2017-08-30, 10:46 AM
So what if you didn't expect them to go the library? Let's say, in your session planning, you thought that the info you provided was more than enough for your players to plan around, but you misjudged. They're more cautious than you expected, or rolled poorly and didn't enough info, or something else-point is, they decide to go to a library when you didn't expect it. What then?

2D8HP
2017-08-30, 11:08 AM
While I don't like at all the "read this history and travel guide first" approach as a player (I enjoy reading setting books, for ideas as a DM, but when I read them as a player, my reaction is, "Well that would have been cool to learn in play), but once I've read it, I kinda feel "Been there, done that", and I'm less enthusiastic about playing/exploring the setting.

But something read in-character from a setting library sounds cool!
:
"In the Year of the Behemoth, the Month of the Hedgehog, The Day of the Toad."

"Satisfied that they your near the goal of your quest, you think of how you had slit the interesting-looking vellum page from the ancient book on architecture that reposed in the library of the rapacious and overbearing Lord Rannarsh."

“It was a page of thick vellum, ancient and curiously greenish. Three edges were frayed and worn; the fourth showed a clean and recent cut. It was inscribed with the intricate hieroglyphs of Lankhmarian writing, done in the black ink of the squid. Reading":

"Let kings stack their treasure houses ceiling-high, and merchants burst their vaults with hoarded coin, and fools envy them. I have a treasure that outvalues theirs. A diamond as big as a man's skull. Twelve rubies each as big as the skull of a cat. Seventeen emeralds each as big as the skull of a mole. And certain rods of crystal and bars of orichalcum. Let Overlords swagger jewel-bedecked and queens load themselves with gems, and fools adore them. I have a treasure that will outlast theirs. A treasure house have I builded for it in the far southern forest, where the two hills hump double, like sleeping camels, a day's ride beyond the village of Soreev.

"A great treasure house with a high tower, fit for a king's dwelling—yet no king may dwell there. Immediately below the keystone of the chief dome my treasure lies hid, eternal as the glittering stars. It will outlast me and my name,"

FreddyNoNose
2017-08-30, 12:32 PM
Most DM's/GM's want you to read their lovingly made "setting book", and then play-act out one of the inhabitants that they've detailed, which is what I don't want to do.

May I have a Parsival like naif from an isolated village, or a Conan like foreigner PC, and explore the setting in play, ala Quertus?

Please?






What do you mean, African of European?
I don't know. AHHHhhhhh!!!!!!

Darth Ultron
2017-08-30, 05:22 PM
So what if you didn't expect them to go the library? Let's say, in your session planning, you thought that the info you provided was more than enough for your players to plan around, but you misjudged. They're more cautious than you expected, or rolled poorly and didn't enough info, or something else-point is, they decide to go to a library when you didn't expect it. What then?

I don't want to sound like I bragging here...but that just about never happens. I give three clues of each thing, and one will all ways be like ''an anvil fell on you, so you got the clue''. Plus I also Railroad like Casey Jones on the Fourth of July!

Any place ''around'' the characters that is interesting I have made an encounter for (and some tracks leading the characters there). I also have plenty of ''generic encounters'' that I can drop in. And I will also ''stall'' (or guess you can say Railroad) the characters for a game so they can't get to a spot until I make the encounter.

And even if I did not do all that, I'd still just make the place a wild encounter on the fly.



But something read in-character from a setting library sounds cool!

I have done ''scrolls'' forever like this: a first person point of view of something. They are fun to write, and players like them.

Tinkerer
2017-08-30, 05:56 PM
Your paragraph is full of just vagueness. Like when you say ''oh they hold sway in the one other place'', but don't name the place? And when you do name the place you then have to tell the players about it. You can't just say ''they are powerful in the Dark, Dammed Land of Zolt'' and then just cut off right there and be like ''oh, your character knows nothing about that land''.

Yes that paragraph was full of vagueness because (as I said) it was referencing another paragraph where that information was provided, that line which mentioned that was even part of the quote that you included. Additionally this was assuming that these characters who are (as I said) probably mid to high teens and have probably been around the land and are familiar with the provinces. If they aren't I'll refer them to the 6 page peasants guide to the world which is always the first thing I prepare in a campaign and which they received in session 0. And yes 2D8HP receiving the handout is optional if you want a character who doesn't know the basics.


No, thought I was clear that ''read'' must be done outside the game. If a player did want to stop and read a book mid game, they can sure leave and go home and read.

I know some people ''can't read a book'', but mostly I'm going for chapters or short stories or articles. Though I don't buy the ''don't have time'' thing. I know this is just an excuse for the player to be a casual lazy player. For me this is right up there with a player saying ''dude I did not have time to read the game rules, like I'll just roll a d20 and you tell me what my character does."

Ahahaha, now I'm just imagining the players on a ship:

PC1: "Alright boys, the captain says that we'll be in port by dusk. With the journal of Lord Etharop we'll be able to figure out the shapeshifters weakness and expose those scallywags at court. PC2 what does the journal say?"
PC2: "Well that's the thing see, I don't really feel like reading right now."
PC1: "... What?"
PC2: "Well maybe tomorrow I'll feel like reading it. Or maybe we'll get attacked by a kraken and then I'll feel like reading it a lot sooner. Assuming we don't get lucky and kill it too quickly of course."
PC1: "Lad... I thought I warned ye about sniffing the Sovereign's Glue."
(Apparently PC1 was played by Robert Newton and PC2 was played by Nick Frost)


This is the tricky ''you pick what is relevant'' though.

Yes, that is one of the most important GM duties. Suppose the characters run across a cabin in the woods. I could spend the entire session just describing the cabin and the objects in it however I think everyone would agree that would be an exercise in foolishness and tedium. You pick what is relevant and you describe that. Literally every sentence that I say as a GM is me deciding what is and what is not relevant to the characters (and more importantly to the players experience).

I was going to bring up this point under the previous quote however this spot seems more relevant. The character reads a book and you present them with a chapter or a short story or an article. So either you've decided that the other information within the book is irrelevant or you are saying that the chapter/ss/article is literally what is written in the book. Additionally it removes your chance to flavour the information to your liking. An article on giants written by dragons will look much different than one written by dwarves. Then there is stuff like the time the party went looking for the troop rotation records of the occupying army in one campaign that I ran (there was something which seemed off). I had no interest in writing out several dozen pages of troop placement records off the cuff and they knew what they were looking for so there's definitely no harm in answering their questions.


Guess it is a good think the average RPG book does not have ''the deep dark secrets of the gods''.

Depends on the setting, I can think of quite a few where they reveal information that the characters aren't supposed to know. It still leads to a complete disconnect where what the character is has no bearing on their knowledge.


The library scenario that you described isn't an uncommon one however are you saying that every time they go to the library something like that will happen? If so I highly doubt that any library is going to be able to retain any staff what with all of the weird stuff happening. Plus it's not like they go to the library and the first book that they grab is the answer to all of their questions, do you have them read all the books which don't contain the answer to their inquiry?

Darth Ultron
2017-08-30, 09:38 PM
Yes, that is one of the most important GM duties. Suppose the characters run across a cabin in the woods. I could spend the entire session just describing the cabin and the objects in it however I think everyone would agree that would be an exercise in foolishness and tedium. You pick what is relevant and you describe that. Literally every sentence that I say as a GM is me deciding what is and what is not relevant to the characters (and more importantly to the players experience).

I'm not a fan of this and this style drives me crazy. It's like if I accidentally watch a couple minutes of a Sherlock episode.

Like when the DM says "Oh the cabin is full of normal, boring mundane stuff.....but there is a SILVER DAGGER on the end table. So after looking around and seeing the Silver Dagger, what does your character want to do with that Silver Dagger?''



I was going to bring up this point under the previous quote however this spot seems more relevant. The character reads a book and you present them with a chapter or a short story or an article. So either you've decided that the other information within the book is irrelevant or you are saying that the chapter/ss/article is literally what is written in the book. Additionally it removes your chance to flavour the information to your liking. An article on giants written by dragons will look much different than one written by dwarves.

I do try to stick to Scrolls and not books, unless the player is really into reading.



Depends on the setting, I can think of quite a few where they reveal information that the characters aren't supposed to know. It still leads to a complete disconnect where what the character is has no bearing on their knowledge.

Well, my house rule is anything a character knows is a rumor at best, not Hardcore Fact. No player in my game is going to say ''waaa, page 17 says X is Y and I demand that is so!" . And, of course, I do change a lot from the ''book''. And I'm a Spin Master of like Comic book Lost/Once Upon a Time levels.....so sure ''Bob is mayor of Mudville'', except it's not ''the'' Bob. It's Bob's brother Joe who....



The library scenario that you described isn't an uncommon one however are you saying that every time they go to the library something like that will happen? If so I highly doubt that any library is going to be able to retain any staff what with all of the weird stuff happening. Plus it's not like they go to the library and the first book that they grab is the answer to all of their questions, do you have them read all the books which don't contain the answer to their inquiry?

Yes, every time. I like an adventure filled world. I'm not sure it makes sense out of context. And the adventure encounter might not be ''in'' the library, just involve it. Like for example: Candlekeep requires for entry a rare tome and a written recommendation of a sage/wizard of good standing. So the players will need both to get in, so they will need an adventure to get both, maybe three.

And folk in my games accept the weird world, so they work in the haunted library or the mimic library or the teleporting library like it was ''normal'' to them.

In general players are looking for not only specific information in a library, but also the rare/important/locked away section.

Mordaedil
2017-08-31, 01:08 AM
So you take a visit to the library and make it a combat encounter because it is "cool" and you disparage roll players for just wanting to get to the next set piece where they can roll dice, oookay.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-31, 06:45 AM
So you take a visit to the library and make it a combat encounter because it is "cool" and you disparage roll players for just wanting to get to the next set piece where they can roll dice, oookay.

Yes.

I want to have adventure encounters (not ''just'' combat), and ones that involve the whole group.

The Roll Playing Combat Jerks just want combat on flat 50x50 graph paper so they can kill, loot, and repeat.

Big difference.

Friv
2017-08-31, 11:19 AM
I don't want to sound like I bragging here...but that just about never happens. I give three clues of each thing, and one will all ways be like ''an anvil fell on you, so you got the clue''. Plus I also Railroad like Casey Jones on the Fourth of July!

I know I'm not supposed to be taking part in this thread anymore, but the fact that you think this is something to brag about is just about the saddest thing I've ever heard. :smallfrown:

Darth Ultron
2017-08-31, 05:38 PM
I know I'm not supposed to be taking part in this thread anymore, but the fact that you think this is something to brag about is just about the saddest thing I've ever heard. :smallfrown:

Turn that frown upside down. And get on the train Come on, come on Do the Loco-motion with me
Ye-ye-ye-yeah

Mordaedil
2017-09-01, 01:39 AM
Railroading is usually seen as an active sin far worse in its gravitas than rollplaying, but it's good to know you don't actually play D&D, but you should write a book instead, since it seems you don't actually need players at your table.

Darth Ultron
2017-09-01, 06:18 AM
Railroading is usually seen as an active sin far worse in its gravitas than rollplaying, but it's good to know you don't actually play D&D, but you should write a book instead, since it seems you don't actually need players at your table.

I play D&D, pure Old School Style D&D.

And ''railroading'' is bad in the same way that ''optimization'' is bad: Some jerks give it a bad name.

Satinavian
2017-09-01, 06:28 AM
Old school style D&D is pretty much the opposite of railroading. At least before Dragonlance.


Sure, a railroad heavy game can work and most of your other restrictions work far better in that kind of game. And there are a lot of players who enjoy such games if the DM is a good storyteller. I think i can see now how your table is able to work.

But please, don't call it old-school D&D. Gives people only the wrong ideas.

Darth Ultron
2017-09-01, 11:53 AM
Old school style D&D is pretty much the opposite of railroading. At least before Dragonlance.


Sure, a railroad heavy game can work and most of your other restrictions work far better in that kind of game. And there are a lot of players who enjoy such games if the DM is a good storyteller. I think i can see now how your table is able to work.

But please, don't call it old-school D&D. Gives people only the wrong ideas.

Well, wait, what exactly do you think is Old School D&D gaming then?

Like the game has no DM and all the players hug and story tell together?

Friv
2017-09-01, 12:49 PM
Turn that frown upside down. And get on the train Come on, come on Do the Loco-motion with me
Ye-ye-ye-yeah

Not joking, man. Your answer legitimately depressed me, and made me feel really bad for you.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-09-01, 01:30 PM
Well, wait, what exactly do you think is Old School D&D gaming then?

Like the game has no DM and all the players hug and story tell together?
More like "here's this giant dungeon full of monsters and traps, get as much money as you can out of it before you die." With rules and tables to have you roll for everything from how friendly NPCs are to what terrible disease you just caught. With the DM serving more as a referee than anything else.

So, you know, pretty much the opposite of what you describe.

Though I will ask: are you running a LINEAR game (where there's a single main plotline to follow, which the players happily do) or a RAILROAD game (where there are no choices and the players are forced to do things exactly as the DM envisions)? The first is a mere stylistic thing; the second is defeating the whole point of tabletop gaming.

Tinkerer
2017-09-01, 01:43 PM
I'm not a fan of this and this style drives me crazy. It's like if I accidentally watch a couple minutes of a Sherlock episode.

Like when the DM says "Oh the cabin is full of normal, boring mundane stuff.....but there is a SILVER DAGGER on the end table. So after looking around and seeing the Silver Dagger, what does your character want to do with that Silver Dagger?''

There you go again trying to make other people sound foolish but only succeeding in showing how little you understand. So wait... you do describe every single object in the world? If a player character walks into a forest you describe every single tree that they pass? If they walk into a house and want to know what is in it you go and describe every single solitary item in the house? Every single article of clothing in the drawers? How about if they enter a shop? No of course you don't because that is moronic and I don't think that you're a moron. Take another look at the quote of mine that you were posting that in response to.

Yes, that is one of the most important GM duties. Suppose the characters run across a cabin in the woods. I could spend the entire session just describing the cabin and the objects in it however I think everyone would agree that would be an exercise in foolishness and tedium. You pick what is relevant and you describe that. Literally every sentence that I say as a GM is me deciding what is and what is not relevant to the characters (and more importantly to the players experience).
Then take a look at your response to that quote and tell me if it seems appropriate.


I do try to stick to Scrolls and not books, unless the player is really into reading.

Once again, resulting in characters who cannot read books. As someone who's had several characters in the past as aspiring authors I cannot say that I approve.


Well, my house rule is anything a character knows is a rumor at best, not Hardcore Fact. No player in my game is going to say ''waaa, page 17 says X is Y and I demand that is so!" . And, of course, I do change a lot from the ''book''. And I'm a Spin Master of like Comic book Lost/Once Upon a Time levels.....so sure ''Bob is mayor of Mudville'', except it's not ''the'' Bob. It's Bob's brother Joe who....

Hahaha, if there is one thing which I've found in this world it's that anyone who would use a statement like "And I'm a Spin Master of like Comic book Lost/Once Upon a Time levels.....so sure ''Bob is mayor of Mudville'', except it's not ''the'' Bob. It's Bob's brother Joe who...." most assuredly isn't.

Regardless changes from the book are not terribly unusual in play and I can't say that I ever ran across someone who reacted in your strawman fashion (outside of tournament format). However... your initial post in this section raises some doubts as to whether or not you are speaking truly here. Clearly you are running across some issues in regards to this. You literally started this thread by saying that you had people complaining about your world being different than in the books. You apparently are having people asking you for full write ups of the custom creations which is another thing which I haven't seen before and I am wondering if they have cause for concern.


Yes, every time. I like an adventure filled world. I'm not sure it makes sense out of context. And the adventure encounter might not be ''in'' the library, just involve it. Like for example: Candlekeep requires for entry a rare tome and a written recommendation of a sage/wizard of good standing. So the players will need both to get in, so they will need an adventure to get both, maybe three.

And folk in my games accept the weird world, so they work in the haunted library or the mimic library or the teleporting library like it was ''normal'' to them.

In general players are looking for not only specific information in a library, but also the rare/important/locked away section.

A world in which every single library is haunted or cursed or teleporting or actively trying to eat you, hmm. Am I correct in assuming that every store is likewise haunted or cursed or on fire or actually an elder god? Must you slay the hydra in order to get your trail rations? Solve the Sphinx's riddle to purchase some rope? Thwart the Four Horsemen in order to shoe your own horse? And if your character wants a haircut... *shudder* those are dark paths to walk indeed.

I love an adventure filled world but there's adventure filled and then there's ridiculous. As I said I've used adventure libraries before, they are great and a staple of the genre. However stating that every single library in the world has a mandatory adventure falls firmly on the side of ridiculousness.

EDIT: Isn't Keep on the Borderlands the very definition of Old School Gaming?

Talakeal
2017-09-01, 03:44 PM
Old school style D&D is pretty much the opposite of railroading. At least before Dragonlance.


Sure, a railroad heavy game can work and most of your other restrictions work far better in that kind of game. And there are a lot of players who enjoy such games if the DM is a good storyteller. I think i can see now how your table is able to work.

But please, don't call it old-school D&D. Gives people only the wrong ideas.

Keep in mind that Darth has stated in previous threads that he considers railroading to be more or less binary, and the DM showing any sort of decision making ability whatsoever is railroading.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-09-01, 05:58 PM
Keep in mind that Darth has stated in previous threads that he considers railroading to be more or less binary, and the DM showing any sort of decision making ability whatsoever is railroading.
:smallsigh: I think "railroading" sometimes gets built up to be a much bigger bugaboo than it really is, but good grief.

Dragonexx
2017-09-02, 12:25 AM
I think it should be obvious at this point that Darth Ultron is either an idiot or a troll. Regardless of which, he does not debate honestly or make positive contributions to discussions, arguments with him just go around in circles. His posts are not worth dignifying with a response. Just put him on ignore and go about your day.

Darth Ultron
2017-09-03, 01:40 PM
Not joking, man. Your answer legitimately depressed me, and made me feel really bad for you.

I'd love to respond to this, so I'll just say ''X''.


More like "here's this giant dungeon full of monsters and traps, get as much money as you can out of it before you die." With rules and tables to have you roll for everything from how friendly NPCs are to what terrible disease you just caught. With the DM serving more as a referee than anything else.

So, you know, pretty much the opposite of what you describe.

You have an odd view of Old School D&D.


Though I will ask: are you running a LINEAR game (where there's a single main plotline to follow, which the players happily do) or a RAILROAD game (where there are no choices and the players are forced to do things exactly as the DM envisions)? The first is a mere stylistic thing; the second is defeating the whole point of tabletop gaming.

Neither exactly as you have described. I don't go for the Shinny Happy game where the players all ready know they will ''win'' and complete the quest successfully..and we just play the game to see how they do it. And it's not some kind of ''craved in stone path'' the players ''must'' follow.

Everyone is very stuck on the players must have absolute freedom at all times. And this is simply leading to a disaster. I can think of three main points:

1.Keep the spot light on the characters, that they witness important events and have a chance to interact with them. You can have all sorts of stuff go on in the back ground, and it is great as it makes the game world feel alive. Except, you don't want too much going on in the back ground and nothing much happening to the players. And this is exactly what happens when the players control the game and just wander around by choice. The players only know the plot and story their characters do, so they can be mislead, distracted, fooled or even just make a mistake. So that time and time and time and time again, all the big events in the game world ''miss'' the characters. The DM can freeze time, Quantum Ogre or Railroad to get the characters at the right places and time. Or just sit back and let boring things happen.

2.Make sure the characters experience events in the correct order. This is very basic plot 101. And is related a lot to #1. Event x can not happen unless event y happens. And here we are not talking about back ground stuff, we are talking more the personal plots of the players and characters. The DM can freeze time, Quantum Ogre or Railroad to get the characters at the right places and time. Or just sit back and either not have any events happen or just have things 'pop' out of nowhere.

3.Make sure the characters do or don't do things the players never would. This might be the biggest one. Very few players would every willing agree to anything bad or negative happening to their characters, especially anything major or long term. But if the players demand this and the DM rolls over, it limits the plot lines and events. The whole game must be a cakewalk for the players, with maybe one gray cloud for a couple minutes. It removes a lot of drama and fun from the game. To use the example from another thread: a prison break can be a fun adventure event. But if the game has a hard rule of ''the characters can never, ever, ever be captured as the players don't like it'' then that event can never happen. And while it is true that ''some'' players hate the whole idea of their character getting captured, amazingly, ''some'' players that play through a fun prison break adventure event do like it and have fun and find out it was not as bad as they thought.


:smallsigh: I think "railroading" sometimes gets built up to be a much bigger bugaboo than it really is, but good grief.

I agree. It is like saying ''fire'' is only a massive fire that burns down a city. Then saw ''fire'' is good for making Smores and everyone is like that is Bad Wrong Fun, and not ''fire''.


There you go again trying to make other people sound foolish but only succeeding in showing how little you understand. So wait... you do describe every single object in the world? If a player character walks into a forest you describe every single tree that they pass? If they walk into a house and want to know what is in it you go and describe every single solitary item in the house? Every single article of clothing in the drawers? How about if they enter a shop? No of course you don't because that is moronic and I don't think that you're a moron. Take another look at the quote of mine that you were posting that in response to.

Do I describe everything everywhere, no. But I do describe adventure locations in detail.



Once again, resulting in characters who cannot read books. As someone who's had several characters in the past as aspiring authors I cannot say that I approve.

Um, what? Why can't characters read books? And your game had characters write books?



Hahaha, if there is one thing which I've found in this world it's that anyone who would use a statement most assuredly isn't.

Odd, because I do that stuff so much it is common.



A world in which every single library is haunted or cursed or teleporting or actively trying to eat you, hmm. Am I correct in assuming that every store is likewise haunted or cursed or on fire or actually an elder god? Must you slay the hydra in order to get your trail rations? Solve the Sphinx's riddle to purchase some rope? Thwart the Four Horsemen in order to shoe your own horse? And if your character wants a haircut... *shudder* those are dark paths to walk indeed.

Yes. I'm not a fan of the ''you go to place X and it is dull and boring and we all fall asleep''. Sure it is not ''realistic'' that my world is full of crazy wacky adventure, but my world also has flying dragons, elves that live for hundreds of years, demons, blink cows and hounds of ill omen.



EDIT: Isn't Keep on the Borderlands the very definition of Old School Gaming?

If it is, I'd point out the ''Keep'' as a lot of adventure in it and it is not a ''dungeon''.

JNAProductions
2017-09-03, 01:48 PM
Except you say you hand out actual books (or the texts, at least) for players to read, and require them to read it. So you cannot possibly read a book mid-session, unless you're willing to put a game on halt for multiple hours while someone reads a book.

In addition, a world of nothing but adventures doesn't feel realistic, believable, or even fun. There needs to be highs AND lows-moments of tense, pulse pounding, nail biting action, and scenes of calm relief. I'm not saying you should spend a session on making camp, talking to friendly farmers, and researching in an ordinary library-but those scenes should HAPPEN. They give a sense that you're adventuring in a real world, rather than a stage play. In a four hour session, you don't need four hours of combat, tense diplomacy, puzzles, etc. It should comprise MOST of the session, since that's the big appeal, but spending half an hour on minor things helps flesh out characters. You can only characterize someone so much while they're in adventure-characters have lives outside combat.

2D8HP
2017-09-03, 01:53 PM
More like "here's this giant dungeon full of monsters and traps, get as much money as you can out of it before you die." With rules and tables to have you roll for everything from how friendly NPCs are to what terrible disease you just caught. With the DM serving more as a referee than anything else...


Except that the referee makes up the environment (the first "module" I had (In Search of the Unknown, which came out before Keep) still was "fill in the blanks"), you pretty much nailed old D&D, Grod.

Well done!

Now when do I get to play again?

Darth Ultron
2017-09-03, 02:08 PM
Except you say you hand out actual books (or the texts, at least) for players to read, and require them to read it. So you cannot possibly read a book mid-session, unless you're willing to put a game on halt for multiple hours while someone reads a book.

Correct. The player has to read the book or some other time that is not during the game. Assuming the player has at least a middle school reading level, they can read a text document or article in a couple minutes. And I'm fine with player Bob saying ''Zom, my character goes back to his room at the inn to read."



In addition, a world of nothing but adventures doesn't feel realistic, believable, or even fun. There needs to be highs AND lows-moments of tense, pulse pounding, nail biting action, and scenes of calm relief. I'm not saying you should spend a session on making camp, talking to friendly farmers, and researching in an ordinary library-but those scenes should HAPPEN. They give a sense that you're adventuring in a real world, rather than a stage play. In a four hour session, you don't need four hours of combat, tense diplomacy, puzzles, etc. It should comprise MOST of the session, since that's the big appeal, but spending half an hour on minor things helps flesh out characters. You can only characterize someone so much while they're in adventure-characters have lives outside combat.

Well, my game is all about highs and lows...like a roller-coaster of fun. Just not the boring parts like waiting in line for two hours. My game does not have a lot of 'calm', as that is boring. Well, my players have their characters talk to the farmers while they fight the Harvest Scarecrow....you have your players have their characters talk to the farmers while doing nothing except talking to the farmers. So?

Well, I flesh out characters by actions, adventure, drama, events and fun. And you flesh out characters by, what? dull, boring, uninteresting bits?

My games don't focus on the ''outside of adventure'' bits of a characters life. I know some games like to do the ''roll a 1d20 to pet your dog, DC 12'', but that is not my type of game.

JNAProductions
2017-09-03, 02:10 PM
So you don't actually have books, you have summaries.

And I think I'm getting a better understanding. You don't actually care about anything that doesn't involve dice rolling-skip past all the talky bits where nothing exciting is going on to get to the action. Nothing wrong with that-but that's not my style of gameplay.

Cluedrew
2017-09-03, 02:14 PM
1. [...] Except, you don't want too much going on in the back ground and nothing much happening to the players. And this is exactly what happens when the players control the game and just wander around by choice.Trust me on this one, let players from my group wander around and a lot of plot will happen to the characters. And the plots tended to be far more interesting than any I've seen the GM lay out for the party to discover. And I've seen characters commit ritual suicide and stuff like that, so they will let bad things happen to them.

Honestly a lot of it is environment. The table that all that epic happens at feels different than the ones where the game was ultimately a Final Fantasy adventure. Not that I dislike Final Fantasy, but that isn't really where the strength of pen-and-paper/table-top role-playing games rests. 4

Grod_The_Giant
2017-09-03, 02:28 PM
You have an odd view of Old School D&D.
Umm. No?


Neither exactly as you have described. I don't go for the Shinny Happy game where the players all ready know they will ''win'' and complete the quest successfully..and we just play the game to see how they do it. And it's not some kind of ''craved in stone path'' the players ''must'' follow.
That's great! I'm very proud of you. You killed the crap out of that strawman! Well done! You earn 25xp and 5 gold pieces.

When I say "linear game," my primary meaning is one where the DM provides both a clear goal (or goals) and a clear route (or routes) to address them. Go here, do this, talk to them, kill that guy, save that guy, and on and on. One adventure flows pretty directly into the next. If you do it well, the players will never really notice. (Particularly if you include things like branching paths and wide-open missions that allow players multiple ways to accomplish said thing-- "you need to blackmail the baron; here are a few leads, any one of which might work out; once you've got the info, decide if you want to depose him or prop up his position.")

When I say "railroad game," my primary meaning is one where the DM doesn't allow choice-- not just "what plot do you want to follow," but "you will talk to THIS guy, who will tell you to do THIS, which can only be done THIS way, and if you try something else it will always, always fail." (My favorite example was a game where the PCs didn't feel like doing a dungeon crawl, so a giant adamantine pipe fell from the sky, scooped them up, and dug into the ground with the only open way out leading into the dungeon).

Darth Ultron
2017-09-03, 05:17 PM
So you don't actually have books, you have summaries.

And I think I'm getting a better understanding. You don't actually care about anything that doesn't involve dice rolling-skip past all the talky bits where nothing exciting is going on to get to the action. Nothing wrong with that-but that's not my style of gameplay.

Books too.

Well, it's not all roll playing and it's more like talking with action.


Trust me on this one, let players from my group wander around and a lot of plot will happen to the characters. And the plots tended to be far more interesting than any I've seen the GM lay out for the party to discover. And I've seen characters commit ritual suicide and stuff like that, so they will let bad things happen to them.


Right and the approach of the DM just sits back and lets the players run the game works...for maybe the first half hour. But then you start running into problems. As unless the DM is just dropping the Quantum Ogre the players might not all ways pick the best path or choice. then the game can wander off, get boring and even fail.

As your saying the ''player plots'' are ''so much more interesting'', I'd guess your doing the Quantum Ogre type game right? The ''adventure'' is all ways right in front of the characters, no matter what. And while it makes no sense at the time, it will make sense when you go back and put it all together.

And sure, some players might sometimes allow bad things to happen to a character....but only if they think it is worth it. It's great for selfish personal player power trips, but bad for the over all game.




When I say "linear game," my primary meaning is one where the DM provides both a clear goal (or goals) and a clear route (or routes) to address them. Go here, do this, talk to them, kill that guy, save that guy, and on and on. One adventure flows pretty directly into the next. If you do it well, the players will never really notice. (Particularly if you include things like branching paths and wide-open missions that allow players multiple ways to accomplish said thing-- "you need to blackmail the baron; here are a few leads, any one of which might work out; once you've got the info, decide if you want to depose him or prop up his position.")

Well, then no I don't do your sort of linear game. As DM I don't provide a clear goal or route. And I like chaos too much to have adventures ''flow''.

The Rest sounds like a normal enough game: The players decide to do something, and the DM lays out the setting details, and the players decide how they will try and do it based on the details.

The part where we differ is like : The players want to hunt down a criminal. So there characters find a couple clues as to where he might be, but for whatever reasons the players get the wrong conclusion. The criminal is at spot x, and the players are ready to send there characters to the other side of the map.

I'm stepping right in with a ''go this way'' track. Maybe not a ''guy Bob saw him over there'', but something getting them going in the right direction.

But ''other games'' the characters head off to the wrong place, and spend the whole night not finding the criminal.

And if your going to drop a clue like ''the criminal is at spot x'', then that is railroading, right? Sure the players want to go there, but it is still railroading(just the good kind...DM Agency).



When I say "railroad game," my primary meaning is one where the DM doesn't allow choice-- not just "what plot do you want to follow," but "you will talk to THIS guy, who will tell you to do THIS, which can only be done THIS way, and if you try something else it will always, always fail." (My favorite example was a game where the PCs didn't feel like doing a dungeon crawl, so a giant adamantine pipe fell from the sky, scooped them up, and dug into the ground with the only open way out leading into the dungeon).

This mostly sounds like a jerk DM.

But I do agree that fairly often there is only ''one'' of something. Only one guard lived through the break out three years ago, so the only person who was there and can tell the players about it is that one former guard guy. Period. Only Zagom's Tome of Magic has the secret password in it. Period. there is not all ways six ways to do everything just as the players whine and complain.

And I do agree that fairly often there is only ''one way'' to do something. The players want their characters to do a ritual: it must be done at dawn. Period. The Iron Tower has no windows and only one door, so that is only one way in.

And I do agree that some things will be an auto fail. If the players attempt something beyond their character's abilities, or make a mistake or choose not to do something: they will fail.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-09-03, 07:41 PM
The part where we differ is like : The players want to hunt down a criminal. So there characters find a couple clues as to where he might be, but for whatever reasons the players get the wrong conclusion. The criminal is at spot x, and the players are ready to send there characters to the other side of the map.

I'm stepping right in with a ''go this way'' track. Maybe not a ''guy Bob saw him over there'', but something getting them going in the right direction.
I don't think that's railroading by the common definition, no.


This mostly sounds like a jerk DM.
Agreed; that's why people usually don't like railroading-- it's not about giving hints or direction, it's about forcing a direction on the players, whether they want it or not.


But I do agree that fairly often there is only ''one'' of something. Only one guard lived through the break out three years ago, so the only person who was there and can tell the players about it is that one former guard guy. Period. Only Zagom's Tome of Magic has the secret password in it. Period. there is not all ways six ways to do everything just as the players whine and complain.
Sure, there are plenty of things that'll be unique. But they should either be framed as... I think of them as "adventure checkpoints" when I'm planning my games-- points where various paths converge, and (typcially) a dramatic moment happens. Either that, or there should be alternate options. Maybe only Zagom's Tome has the secret password, but the necromancer Ragom has also read, if you can reach his tower, and if you're really desperate, the mirror demon Mogaz can teleport you past the barrier, for a price...


And I do agree that some things will be an auto fail. If the players attempt something beyond their character's abilities, or make a mistake or choose not to do something: they will fail.
Sure. Railroading auto-fails are when perfectly sensible plans, well within the characters' capabilities, are denied because they're not the "right" way to do it. Like... I dunno, a 10th level thief-rogue attempting to pick the lock on a commoner's house to get at the artifact they mistakenly picked up, only to be told "no."

Darth Ultron
2017-09-03, 08:07 PM
Agreed; that's why people usually don't like railroading-- it's not about giving hints or direction, it's about forcing a direction on the players, whether they want it or not.

And again I think any normal complex game with a plot has to have some things some times be forced. The idea that the DM has to ask for the players permission and blessing for everything in the game is just silly. And people said they don't game that way...and have things happen, but then go around in circles to say the things that were forced were not forced and the railroading was not railroading.



Sure, there are plenty of things that'll be unique. But they should either be framed as... I think of them as "adventure checkpoints" when I'm planning my games-- points where various paths converge, and (typcially) a dramatic moment happens. Either that, or there should be alternate options. Maybe only Zagom's Tome has the secret password, but the necromancer Ragom has also read, if you can reach his tower, and if you're really desperate, the mirror demon Mogaz can teleport you past the barrier, for a price...

It's not like everything has only ''one'' way, but it should not be an absolute game rule that there are ''dozens of ways for everything'' and whatever way the players pick is the ''right'' one. And a lot of ''ways'' might be beyond the characters, but still possible.




Sure. Railroading auto-fails are when perfectly sensible plans, well within the characters' capabilities, are denied because they're not the "right" way to do it. Like... I dunno, a 10th level thief-rogue attempting to pick the lock on a commoner's house to get at the artifact they mistakenly picked up, only to be told "no."

And again, the vast majority of DMs say they do such things. But it's ''Not Railroading'', even when it's one of the most common definitions. And this one goes right back to the crying players. The characters come to a door, and their characters fail to open it....and they cry ''Railroad''.

2D8HP
2017-09-03, 09:33 PM
''Railroad''.


Is this DM's Anonymous?

I confess to using "Quantum Ogres" (https://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/search/label/series%20(Quantum%20Ogre)?m=1) (or as I called it then, "being not perfect, but good enough").

Anyway, better advice than mine is available, so....

Everybody hates railroading. But we often mean very different things when we say it. For instance:

No Railroading: an entire world is defined. Go anywhere, do anything, and we’ll simulate the results.

Railroading, level 1: I’ve designed a continent. Please don’t try to plane shift or sail away.

Railroading, level 2: There’s a tyrant who is the big bad evil guy. He’s oppressing your people. Try anything you like, but he’s the real enemy.

Railroading, level 3: You've been hired to take out the BBEG. There’s a town here to interact with, and a forest with many paths you could take on the way to the dungeon lair of the BBEG

Railroading, level 4: There’s a town here to interact with, followed by a road north through five designed encounters on the way to the dungeon lair of the BBEG.

Railroading, level 5: You must equip yourselves, leave town, follow the road north to the castle, and defeat the BBEG. You cannot buy a sword without locating the blacksmith. You cannot leave town without paying the gate tax. You cannot get past the goblins except by combat. You cannot get past the gnolls without a sleep spell. You cannot find the castle without a compass. You cannot enter the castle gate without a Knock spell. You cannot go down the first corridor without pulling the red lever. You cannot open the door at the end of the corridor without standing on the right flagstone. You cannot …

You could easily invent many more levels.

But the point is that the game with no railroading doesn't really exist, and would most likely be dull. How would we find the adventurous parts?

The original objections IO heard about railroading were objection to level 5 - traps with only one escape, puzzles with only one solution.

The best games I've been in have all been pretty far up the railroading scale - levels 3 or 4 out of 5, as defined above.

So we should probably be careful when describing something as "railroading". Very often we are objecting to the actual adventure.


Congratulations! You have passed the biggest hurdle to becoming a great AD&D DM. Too many people believe the hype that characters always died. And with average DMs, it was true. But in the ideal game of AD&D, the players feel threatened by death nearly always, but somehow, they virtually always manage to survive it.

I've run over a dozen characters from original D&D or AD&D, all of whom started at first level. Only one died at first level (due to my own stupidity), and only one died at higher levels.

Combined with a reputation for high lethality, two deaths out of years of play is all it takes for every encounter to be a suspenseful moment.

One of the most delightful feelings that can come from playing the game is the feeling of having out-witted the DM. Your job is to provide enough background and props and other complications that it's possible to do so. Describe the walls, stairs, furnishings, trees, rocks, streams, etc. Give them terrain and props to do things with. Nobody can swing from the chandeliers, or pull a rug out from under the bad guys' feet, or turn over a table, unless there's a chandelier, rug, and table.

When somebody comes up with an idea, don't ask what skills they have. Picture the scene in your mind and decide how likely it is to occur.

One consequence is that you shouldn't invent the way out of the situation. If you do that, then they aren't outwitting the DM; they are just following his path. And if they don't find his path, then they fail.

Create a situation with no obvious way out, and then any idea the players have can be the clever way to win, and they have just outwitted you.

What people think they want today is a safe encounter they can defeat easily. But what they will want tomorrow is to have been in a deadly encounter which they barely escaped, due to their own ideas and cleverness.

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-03, 10:57 PM
But I do agree that fairly often there is only ''one'' of something. Only one guard lived through the break out three years ago, so the only person who was there and can tell the players about it is that one former guard guy.
And this guard told no one else the story? No one heard about the sudden increase in criminal population?
This singular guard who escaped also just conveniently happens to have the pertinent info, since obviously not all details of the breakout are necessary?
Divination spells stopped existing?
All of the escaped prisoners vanished into thin air as well, leaving none of them available for questioning?
None of them have committed any crimes since and been recaptured in the past 3 years?
None of them have resumed their previous activities, leaving breadcrumbs to track them among the criminal underworld?
If so, you need a genuine reason for all of the above to be true beyond "because I said so."
This example is the kind of thing that makes the world seem hollow and unrealistic no matter how many fluffbooks you write about it.



Only Zagom's Tome of Magic has the secret password in it. Period.
It better be a password for something else that belongs to Zagom. Else how did he attain the password to begin with and why is that source no longer viable?



There is not all ways six ways to do everything
Correct. In reality there is usually much more than 6 ways to accomplish any given task.


]
And I do agree that fairly often there is only ''one way'' to do something. The players want their characters to do a ritual: it must be done at dawn. Period. The Iron Tower has no windows and only one door, so that is only one way in.
I hope the Iron Tower wasn't supposed to have people in it and isn't very tall, or the lack of ventilation will cause extensive problems for anyone expected to be inside of it.
So this tower had better not have had people in it (because of aforementioned problems), and it likely couldn't have been used for any practical purposes in a medieval setting without sacrificing its arbitrary impenetrability. About the only practical purpose it could have would be storing something, but then why build the door?
This Iron Tower makes no rational sense as a structure, which is where this style breaks down:
It values its plot over having a world that makes logical sense, so it just won't make logical sense.

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-03, 11:07 PM
And again I think any normal complex game with a plot has to have some things some times be forced.
Nothing in the complex histories of mankind was forced by an outside author. It does not follow that all complex storylines and sequences of events need an exterior author guiding the story.



The idea that the DM has to ask for the players permission and blessing for everything in the game is just silly.
Please argue against points that have actually been made, not ones you've invented for convenience



And people said they don't game that way...and have things happen, but then go around in circles to say the things that were forced were not forced and the railroading was not railroading.
Ironic that you're using circular logic to accuse others of circular logic.



It's not like everything has only ''one'' way, but it should not be an absolute game rule that there are ''dozens of ways for everything'' and whatever way the players pick is the ''right'' one. And a lot of ''ways'' might be beyond the characters, but still possible.
I can think of about 4 valid ways to acquire a Toyota Corolla within the next 24 hours. This number goes up if I include illegal means.
For nearly any task, there is no single "correct" way. Not even cooking. (Multiple recipes for the same dish can be found)
Even in math you have multiple techniques to get to the same correct answer for the same problem in many cases.
In reality, nearly everything has more than one solution. Arbitrarily denying a solution because you didn't prep for it is stupid, and could be seen easily.



And again, the vast majority of DMs say they do such things. But it's ''Not Railroading'', even when it's one of the most common definitions. And this one goes right back to the crying players. The characters come to a door, and their characters fail to open it....and they cry ''Railroad''.
You seem very familiar with the stresses of players crying "railroad" for someone who has elsewhere claimed that none of your players catch you railroading.
Hmmmmm.
Makes me think there's some fibbing going on somewhere.

Darth Ultron
2017-09-04, 06:58 PM
This example is the kind of thing that makes the world seem hollow and unrealistic no matter how many fluffbooks you write about it.

But why anything could have happened. To say ''everyone in the whole world just knows everything about everything'' is just silly.



Correct. In reality there is usually much more than 6 ways to accomplish any given task.

That is not ture.



This Iron Tower makes no rational sense as a structure, which is where this style breaks down:
It values its plot over having a world that makes logical sense, so it just won't make logical sense.

Did you forget we are talking about an unrealistic fantasy world?


Nothing in the complex histories of mankind was forced by an outside author. It does not follow that all complex storylines and sequences of events need an exterior author guiding the story.

In real life no, but in fiction they do.



In reality, nearly everything has more than one solution. Arbitrarily denying a solution because you didn't prep for it is stupid, and could be seen easily.

Well, your forgetting things like ''the crown jewels are in the royal vault'' , no no matter what if you want them you must get them out of here.

Or like say you want to post on a online forum, will you must use a device to get online, go to the forum and type out your post. But your like saying ''oh people post all the time without going online and connecting to the internet.''



You seem very familiar with the stresses of players crying "railroad" for someone who has elsewhere claimed that none of your players catch you railroading.
Hmmmmm.
Makes me think there's some fibbing going on somewhere.

If it helps, unlike most others it seems, I game with three types of people:

1.Good Friends. No problems here.

2.People I sort of know a tiny bit, but are not friends with and just game with. Some problems here.

3.Strangers. Lots of problems here.

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-04, 07:22 PM
But why anything could have happened. To say ''everyone in the whole world just knows everything about everything'' is just silly.
Please go after a point I actually made, not one you invented from whole cloth for convenience.



That is not ture.

Give me a task and I'll give you multiple solutions.



Did you forget we are talking about an unrealistic fantasy world?

The world has to be believable, otherwise it's basically Loony Tunes with wizards.



In real life no, but in fiction they do.

Ah, but many complicated works of fiction have multiple authors. Do you know how many writers there are for any given film, tv show, and even some books? Are you aware that the actors playing these parts even get a degree of input?
You have no leg to stand on, here.



Well, your forgetting things like ''the crown jewels are in the royal vault'' , no no matter what if you want them you must get them out of here.
And yet there are several ways to accomplish the task, which is my point, which you're ignoring in favor of things I never said.
(It's also worth noting that saying "these inanimate objects are in one particular place by virtue of being inanimate objects" makes sense. Meanwhile "There is only one living person with access to knowledge about an event with widespread consequences and many different persons involved on a variety of levels, AND this same sole remaining individual conveniently happens to have pertinent information" is a wild stretch and does not make sense.)



Or like say you want to post on a online forum, will you must use a device to get online, go to the forum and type out your post. But your like saying ''oh people post all the time without going online and connecting to the internet.''

Again, not even vaguely close to the argument I'm making. Maybe try reading?

(Also I can get someone else to post for me, pulling me out of the loop, or set a bot to post regularly in my place. This is actually a solveable problem.)

And also worth noting that the only way you made this problem seem unsolvable was by wording the one solution as vaguely and all-encompassingly as possible, where your usual examples are more akin to "the only way to post on this forum is to go to Library Computer #4 at Hollybrook Library" and then get mad when people suggest that maybe a smartphone or PC may be just as good and accuse them of saying that they are insisting any object with a circuitboard could access the CIA mainframe.

In other words: you put arbitrary and stupid restrictions in your examples, and when they are pointed out as being arbitrary and stupid you attempt to do the same to the objection, except you have to make up your own objection because no one is as stupid as you require them to be to win on your own merit.



If it helps, unlike most others it seems, I game with three types of people:

1.Good Friends. No problems here.

2.People I sort of know a tiny bit, but are not friends with and just game with. Some problems here.

3.Strangers. Lots of problems here.

Weird. I rarely have problems with any of these three.
Wonder what it is you're doing wrong?
Hmmmmm.....

Darth Ultron
2017-09-05, 06:41 AM
Please go after a point I actually made, not one you invented from whole cloth for convenience.

Well, your point is that it is utterly impossible for their to be unknown things in the world right?



Give me a task and I'll give you multiple solutions.

It's ok, I understand reality and know that is impossible. You will just wander all over the place and do the old 2+2=5 trick to make whatever you say possible or you will just be silly vague. And as you'd side table DM, it would be an impossible thing to do.



The world has to be believable, otherwise it's basically Loony Tunes with wizards.

I guess it depends on what you think is believable. I'm fine with Cloud Castles, Ghosts, Time Portals, Intelligent Animated Skyships and Blink Cows for example. You seem to be stuck on ''everything must be exactly like Earth was in 1400'' or something like that.



Ah, but many complicated works of fiction have multiple authors. Do you know how many writers there are for any given film, tv show, and even some books? Are you aware that the actors playing these parts even get a degree of input?
You have no leg to stand on, here.

Well, sure most films and TV show episodes and books have one writer. You can check the writing credit easy enough for most films and TV show episodes. And most books have it right on the cover. And there is a huge difference between ''some input'' and the actor ''writing the plot and story''. A good RPG works like that too. The players might say ''we want to do a murder mystery'' so the DM makes that adventure.

Like you are saying the Hobbit Actor would say ''tossing the ring into only one volcano is dumb. There are billions of ways to destroy a ring because I say so" and then the actor will re write the script and plot so they can melt the ring in a campfire.



And yet there are several ways to accomplish the task, which is my point, which you're ignoring in favor of things I never said.
(It's also worth noting that saying "these inanimate objects are in one particular place by virtue of being inanimate objects" makes sense. Meanwhile "There is only one living person with access to knowledge about an event with widespread consequences and many different persons involved on a variety of levels, AND this same sole remaining individual conveniently happens to have pertinent information" is a wild stretch and does not make sense.)

Well, I guess you will never understand then.



Again, not even vaguely close to the argument I'm making.

I'd guess your the time of DM that has the others in the game be DM's too? So everyone just makes up everything? I guess that makes sense.



In other words: you put arbitrary and stupid restrictions in your examples, and when they are pointed out as being arbitrary and stupid you attempt to do the same to the objection, except you have to make up your own objection because no one is as stupid as you require them to be to win on your own merit.

Well, you know you bring up ''reality'' a lot...and reality has restrictions.




Weird. I rarely have problems with any of these three.
Wonder what it is you're doing wrong?
Hmmmmm.....

We play different games. Mine is more the classic all powerful DM and limited players, you are doing the everyone is a DM hug. Though I'd also guess your playing the anti-D&D type games too.

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-05, 07:15 AM
Well, your point is that it is utterly impossible for their to be unknown things in the world right?
No. Try re-reading what I've written. I know you can do it, buddy.
I believe in you.




It's ok, I understand reality and know that is impossible. You will just wander all over the place and do the old 2+2=5 trick to make whatever you say possible or you will just be silly vague. And as you'd side table DM, it would be an impossible thing to do.
The theories of mathematics are not a task.
Nice try, though, accusing me of the thing you're doing.




I guess it depends on what you think is believable. I'm fine with Cloud Castles, Ghosts, Time Portals, Intelligent Animated Skyships and Blink Cows for example. You seem to be stuck on ''everything must be exactly like Earth was in 1400'' or something like that.
Still somehow missing the point.
Maybe try reading what I wrote instead of imagining something way more convenient for me to have written?




Well, sure most films and TV show episodes and books have one writer.
You'll want to doublecheck that one. Usually the primary writer gets credit for the episode, but there are pretty much always other writers involved. (Except with books. Hence why I said "some books.")




And there is a huge difference between ''some input'' and the actor ''writing the plot and story''. A good RPG works like that too. The players might say ''we want to do a murder mystery'' so the DM makes that adventure.
You do know that many iconic movie scenes and lines were essentially created when the actor did something off-script and the director decided that was better, yeah?
Shooting the sword guy in indiana jones.
Willy Wonka's entrance
"Most annoying sound in the world" gag from Dumb and Dumber
"We're gonna need a bigger boat" from Jaws
The entire Party Scene in Ghostbusters was done by Rick Moranis

And yes, RPGs are different from movies with actors because they allow for much cooler forms of collaboration, if you let them. If you don't collaborate with your players, then you'll never get anywhere beyond "basically LotR but worse in every way" with about as much emotional investment as anyone had for season 1 of Agents of Shield.



Like you are saying the Hobbit Actor would say ''tossing the ring into only one volcano is dumb. There are billions of ways to destroy a ring because I say so" and then the actor will re write the script and plot so they can melt the ring in a campfire.

Not even a little bit close to what I'm saying.



Well, I guess you will never understand then.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha
This coming from the guy who literally has not understood or accurately summed up a single point I have made.



I'd guess your the time of DM that has the others in the game be DM's too? So everyone just makes up everything? I guess that makes sense.

Nope. Just one GM. I don't come up with absolutely everything, but most player contributions amount to naming NPCs and other things firmly within their wheelhouse. Because obviously a martial artist trained by a master would know the master's name, and I'm not so anal retentive as to not let the player name that master and give some reasonable details.

But of course, you'll purposefully leave out this followup paragraph and insist that I let anyone do anything at any time, as opposed to letting the players have a small share of the narrative authority when worldbuilding and discussing the things that their characters care about.



Well, you know you bring up ''reality'' a lot...and reality has restrictions.

Yes. And it also tends to not be clean, convenient, or have singular solutions to all possible problems, aa you suggest. We even have a saying about it:
"There's more than one way to skin a cat."
There's also more than one way to build a car, (As evidenced by there being many types of car) start a fire, start a car (more if it's Manual transmission), download programs, obtain a movie, obtain a password (or any sensitive information), acquire embarassing photos of someone, learn about a recent local event, etc. That you can only come up with one solution to any given problem sounds like a personal failing on your personal part, since people find multiple solutions to problems on a regular basis.




We play different games. Mine is more the classic all powerful DM and limited players, you are doing the everyone is a DM hug.
Not even a little close.



Though I'd also guess your playing the anti-D&D type games too.

I don't play D&D, no, but I'm hardpressed to call anything I play diametrically opposed to D&D, except Fall of Magic which I only play on rare occassions when someone can't make it and we want to play something anyways, and is not a game I GM in nor would I use as an example of proper GMing since the game doesn't have one and it would be counterintuitive.

So, no. Your deductions are inaccurate. Again, I implore you to maybe try reading. It's a good skill to pick up, and can serve you well.

veti
2017-09-05, 08:41 AM
Well, I like the more ''the characters know nothing'' myself. I want player and character knowledge to come from game play. Too many players don't want to just 'know' about the setting: they want to be super experts on the setting. And they use their knowledge to prevent the adventure, encounters or any type of experience from happening.

There's a reasonable middle ground here. If a player asks "this country I live in, is it a kingdom or a democratic republic or an oligarchy or what?", I'm gonna answer that. If they ask "where would I go (in my hometown) to buy a sword?", I'll tell them. But if they ask "is there any such thing as a troll that rusts your sword when you hit it?", I'm going to start thinking "how likely is it that they would know that?"

And if it's "is there any such thing as a feat that allows a fighter to (consistently) disrupt a spellcaster?", it's completely possible that they're asking about a secret technique that's, simply, only known to a handful of people and they're not one of them. Then I'll say "not that you know of". If they follow up with "who would know?", then they can make a Knowledge roll to direct them to the most likely subject matter expert.


And it does get crazy with the 'old' stuff the players ''think'' they know. Like a couple weeks ago I had a PC group that was being escorted through some woods by some elves. At night the elves cut down a tree to make a fire. Two players really flipped out over this demanding that ''elves would never, ever cut down a live tree''.

Yeah, that's... always happened. Even back in 1st edition, before I had more sourcebooks than hair follicles, people would be making those pronouncements based on their reading of Tolkien. Sometimes it's hard for players to get their heads around the idea that this is one setting, and preconceptions derived from another one may not work here.

Tinkerer
2017-09-05, 01:33 PM
Do I describe everything everywhere, no. But I do describe adventure locations in detail.

Then you are abbreviating, condensing, and deciding what is important. I am sitting in a room right now and I could easily spend about 4 hours describing the room if I didn't decide what part of the description is important. Additionally I think you forget that you GM on this message board. People who want to see if what you are saying matches the reality can actually go and check.


Um, what? Why can't characters read books? And your game had characters write books?

Characters can't read books because the number of books written from an in game perspective is rather low. And if you are talking about written from the perspective of your world it is non-existent (your world doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to any of the standard settings I'm familiar with). Sure it basically gets the information across but I really wouldn't say it's accurate. And yes I've had several characters write books about their exploits. The players who are most likely to do so are also the players who are most likely to have notebooks full of notes detailing the game world. Heck I've even had a couple of players write books detailing their adventures. Well, collections of short stories anyways. In D&D there is literally an entire class dedicated to telling tales of their exploits.


Odd, because I do that stuff so much it is common.

I think it's pretty clear that of the sentences "And I'm a Spin Master of like Comic book Lost/Once Upon a Time levels.....so sure ''Bob is mayor of Mudville'', except it's not ''the'' Bob. It's Bob's brother Joe who...." it was the "Spin Master" part that I was taking exception to, especially when you follow it up with a basic identity switch which isn't even a spin, it's just a plain alteration.


Yes. I'm not a fan of the ''you go to place X and it is dull and boring and we all fall asleep''. Sure it is not ''realistic'' that my world is full of crazy wacky adventure, but my world also has flying dragons, elves that live for hundreds of years, demons, blink cows and hounds of ill omen.

That is why you don't spend time on those things. The party is about to leave town. They are pumped up and psyched about the new info they just got! They know there is an exciting adventure just in front of them!!! Aaaaand one of the players realizes that they forgot to grab a length of rope to replace the one that got burnt up when they tried to lasso that dragon you got a few options. You can a) sidetrack the whole party into a well described shop where you engage in bartering with the local merchants and comparing lengths of rope. This is likely to piss off (and rightfully so) the rest of the party. b) deny the player on the grounds of "you should have gone to the bathroom when you had the chance". This will of course piss off Jillaroo Jane the Australian Yankee (long &$!#ing story) who kinda needs her rope. c) Just say "Oh yeah you can pop in and grab a length for 50 credits". Of course there are many, many other ways of dealing with the situation (I'd be inclined to drop a one sentence adventure hook for next time simply because I know Jane is in a rush and she's not the sort of person who would hold up the party).


If it is, I'd point out the ''Keep'' as a lot of adventure in it and it is not a ''dungeon''.

Yep. KotB is actually a forerunner of the sandbox style of RPG play as opposed to the dungeon style of RPG play. The railroad linear plot heavy story style is more of a 2nd edition AD&D invention than a real "old school" style and got popularized with the explosion of the D&D novels (particularly the Dragonlance Heroes saga). Of course this depends on your definition of "old school".

Darth Ultron
2017-09-05, 04:56 PM
You'll want to doublecheck that one. Usually the primary writer gets credit for the episode, but there are pretty much always other writers involved. (Except with books. Hence why I said "some books.")

Guess it depends what you mean by ''involved''. Plenty of writers will jot something down and then let another read it and tell them what they think. Then the writer might or might not change something.



You do know that many iconic movie scenes and lines were essentially created when the actor did something off-script and the director decided that was better, yeah?

I'm not really sure where your going with this tangent. But sure, some times once in a while, a person has a good idea and it get used.

BUT it's a huge way from a director/writer/producer choosing to use an idea from another person to the point your making about how like an actor or player can ''take control of a plot and nobody can do anything about it because Actor Agency(aka player agency).



And yes, RPGs are different from movies with actors because they allow for much cooler forms of collaboration, if you let them. If you don't collaborate with your players, then you'll never get anywhere beyond "basically LotR but worse in every way" with about as much emotional investment as anyone had for season 1 of Agents of Shield.

Except your idea of ''collaborate'' is roll over and let the players run everything.



But of course, you'll purposefully leave out this followup paragraph and insist that I let anyone do anything at any time, as opposed to letting the players have a small share of the narrative authority when worldbuilding and discussing the things that their characters care about.

And, like I said you do, here is where you mix up things. It is one thing to have a cook out and a ''game 0'' where everyone just talks about stuff.

It is a whole other thing for the players to be tyrants and take control of the game.



I don't play D&D

I figured.


There's a reasonable middle ground here. If a player asks "this country I live in, is it a kingdom or a democratic republic or an oligarchy or what?", I'm gonna answer that. If they ask "where would I go (in my hometown) to buy a sword?", I'll tell them. But if they ask "is there any such thing as a troll that rusts your sword when you hit it?", I'm going to start thinking "how likely is it that they would know that?"

But what middle ground? Sure the DM can answer a question, but what about three or five or ten? Then that gets to be a lot of time. Plus every answer spawns another question. The Dm says ''republic'' and then the player will ask questions about that, and questions about those answers. It can snowball quick.


. Additionally I think you forget that you GM on this message board. People who want to see if what you are saying matches the reality can actually go and check.

Sure, except a PbP is not the same as a real life game. In real life I can say a description quick, but I'm not going to type out 50,000 words of text(even more so on my phone).

And in real life I give players like seven seconds to react, or they skip their characters turn. That does not work for PbP.



I think it's pretty clear that of the sentences "And I'm a Spin Master of like Comic book Lost/Once Upon a Time levels.....so sure ''Bob is mayor of Mudville'', except it's not ''the'' Bob. It's Bob's brother Joe who...." it was the "Spin Master" part that I was taking exception to, especially when you follow it up with a basic identity switch which isn't even a spin, it's just a plain alteration.

Well, it does fluster the average Ma and Pa Kettle Players. Do you read Comics? Do you watch Lost or Once Upon a Time?

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-05, 10:51 PM
Guess it depends what you mean by ''involved''. Plenty of writers will jot something down and then let another read it and tell them what they think. Then the writer might or might not change something.

Yes. And RPGs aren't books. The point was that not even these forms of media you use as an excuse for 0-collaboration are as collaboration-free as you insist for justification.
(Not that this applies even a little to what is, at its core, a collaborative exercise.)



I'm not really sure where your going with this tangent. But sure, some times once in a while, a person has a good idea and it get used.

BUT it's a huge way from a director/writer/producer choosing to use an idea from another person to the point your making about how like an actor or player can ''take control of a plot and nobody can do anything about it because Actor Agency(aka player agency).
Did you miss the part where Rick Moranis did an ENTIRE SCENE?




Except your idea of ''collaborate'' is roll over and let the players run everything.

You keep trying to tell me this, as if repeating it enough will make it start to be true.
Sadly, not how reality works.



And, like I said you do, here is where you mix up things. It is one thing to have a cook out and a ''game 0'' where everyone just talks about stuff.

I do this literally any time it comes up during the campaign. Not every relevant piece of information about a character's past will come up in session 0. So I allow for various details to remain unknown until they become relevant.

Turns out I know exactly what I'm talking about. Makes one of us not making things up.



It is a whole other thing for the players to be tyrants and take control of the game.

That would be an entirely different thing, yes. A thing nobody is talking about and that you brought in because it would be awfully convenient if we WERE talking about that. But we aren't, so you're floundering.



I figured.

This is the part where I break your brain by mentioning that I DM'd in my current style for D&D for years before finding other games I and my group like more.



But what middle ground? Sure the DM can answer a question, but what about three or five or ten? Then that gets to be a lot of time. Plus every answer spawns another question. The Dm says ''republic'' and then the player will ask questions about that, and questions about those answers. It can snowball quick.
The numbers more than one and less than ten are the middle ground, buddy.

Darth Ultron
2017-09-06, 06:32 AM
Yes. And RPGs aren't books. The point was that not even these forms of media you use as an excuse for 0-collaboration are as collaboration-free as you insist for justification.
(Not that this applies even a little to what is, at its core, a collaborative exercise.)

It is kida an odd example your trying to make as it does not fit. In things like movies an actor is hired to play a role and act out a plot, they are no hired to re-make the movie into their own selfish vision. An actor might say make a suggestion, but they can't just take control over the whole movie and make it all about themselves.



Did you miss the part where Rick Moranis did an ENTIRE SCENE?

An actor did a scene? Ok, this is what actors do. I'm not sure what your point is here?



You keep trying to tell me this, as if repeating it enough will make it start to be true.
Sadly, not how reality works.

Well, it is what your saying.

1.DM controls the game. Normal Game.
2.Players control the game. Your Other type of game.
3.No One controls the game and it's all a random mess.

Now players ''making suggestions'' only fits in the normal game, and you say you don't do that. And if you do the ''vote game'', where each gamer gets a vote, that is a player controlled game, and you have not said you do this. And you don't to a meaningless random game, I think. So there is only one left.



I do this literally any time it comes up during the campaign. Not every relevant piece of information about a character's past will come up in session 0. So I allow for various details to remain unknown until they become relevant.

Maybe you need to do a better Session Zero?



The numbers more than one and less than ten are the middle ground, buddy.

Your middle ground seems like a lot. But I guess you have fun sitting there doing the ''less then ten questions'' every couple of minutes. That is not fun to me.

Cluedrew
2017-09-06, 07:24 AM
1.DM controls the game. Normal Game.
2.Players control the game. Your Other type of game.
3.No One controls the game and it's all a random mess.4.Control is distributed around the table. A healthy game.

Of course you are not going to agree with me on that, that would be a sudden change. But it is there, I've seen it work and it has lead to the best results I have seen in any game.

Darth Ultron
2017-09-06, 07:51 AM
4.Control is distributed around the table. A healthy game.

Of course you are not going to agree with me on that, that would be a sudden change. But it is there, I've seen it work and it has lead to the best results I have seen in any game.

Well, ok, can you explain how you do this? It seems to me that this ''4th way'' is just the player control way.

Like assuming the game has a figurehead DM that just does what the players want, and the players just do whatever they want, and the DM says ''that is great player'' and it happens....well that is player control of the game.

I guess you would not see it as ''player control'' though as you ''all ways agree with the players anyway'' so it does not ''feel'' like they are in control or you really, really, really don't care and just do the casual DM style

And I see the ''getting everything you want all the time'' as very, very unhealthy. It's like letting a kid eat candy 24/7 as that is what they want to eat.

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-06, 09:26 AM
It is kida an odd example your trying to make as it does not fit. In things like movies an actor is hired to play a role and act out a plot, they are no hired to re-make the movie into their own selfish vision. An actor might say make a suggestion, but they can't just take control over the whole movie and make it all about themselves.
No. But RPGs aren't movies, either. They are inherently collaborative.



An actor did a scene? Ok, this is what actors do. I'm not sure what your point is here?

You misunderstand. When I say he did the scene, I mean there was no other writer or director for that scene. Rick Moranis ran the entire scene.



Well, it is what your saying.

"If I say a thing enough, it will magically become true."



1.DM controls the game. Normal Game.
2.Players control the game. Your Other type of game.
3.No One controls the game and it's all a random mess.

Well you've progressed from a False Dichotomy to a False Trichotomy. It's still wrong, but it's progress.



Now players ''making suggestions'' only fits in the normal game, and you say you don't do that.
My players have narrative authority whenever it would improve the game or whenever decisions lie in their hands. I tend to ask pointed and loaded questions to facilitate this throughout the game.



And if you do the ''vote game'', where each gamer gets a vote, that is a player controlled game, and you have not said you do this. And you don't to a meaningless random game, I think. So there is only one left.

Congratulations. You've reached the conclusion that I and many others do not fit your 3-options model since it only operates at far extremes. We're making progress.



Maybe you need to do a better Session Zero?

Since I can't predict what will and won't be relevant 6 weeks from now (due to the agency of the characters having a large influence in the direction of the game) the only other option would be Novel-length backstories and, as the ancient meme states, "Ain't Nobody Got Time Fo' Dat."



Your middle ground seems like a lot. But I guess you have fun sitting there doing the ''less then ten questions'' every couple of minutes. That is not fun to me.
Who said it was every couple of minutes?
Only you....
So this is another invented thing you came up with that nobody is talking about!

Yay!

Darth Ultron
2017-09-06, 12:01 PM
No. But RPGs aren't movies, either. They are inherently collaborative.

To say they are collaborative is a long way from what your talking about though.



You misunderstand. When I say he did the scene, I mean there was no other writer or director for that scene. Rick Moranis ran the entire scene.

So, once, a writer/actor/director did a whole scene (minus a camera guy, sound guy, grip and such) for one movie.....so by your logic all movies are like that all the time?




My players have narrative authority whenever it would improve the game or whenever decisions lie in their hands. I tend to ask pointed and loaded questions to facilitate this throughout the game.

So player controlled game then. Like I said. I just wonder why your so against admitting it?



Congratulations. You've reached the conclusion that I and many others do not fit your 3-options model since it only operates at far extremes. We're making progress.

The conclusion is more ''people don't want to admit what they do'' and ''all ways want to pretend to be different''.

A normal traditional game, of the type we are talking about, has one DM, and several players. So only have the DM in control or the players in control or no body in control. You can't have ''everyone shares control as DM and Player are not equal and the same'' and as there are more players then DM's, that is player control.

But if you do insist on some sort of shared control, I'd ask how you do it? And remember I'm only talking about games, like D&D that have a Dm and players. I know there are tons of games made by the ''D&D haters'' that do the more group hug care and share cooperation game, but those are whole other games.



Since I can't predict what will and won't be relevant 6 weeks from now (due to the agency of the characters having a large influence in the direction of the game) the only other option would be Novel-length backstories and, as the ancient meme states, "Ain't Nobody Got Time Fo' Dat."

Backstories are normally quite detailed. Unless your talking about like just filling in the blanks? Like the backstory just says ''grew up in some city'' because both you and the player don't have time to pick a city. Then later during the game, even more so if it will give the player some advantage, they can just say ''oh my character is from Highport...and all ways has been, wink wink" Or just rewriting history on the whim of the Player? So no matter where the character goes in the game world they will say ''oh, my character was born in this place ".



Who said it was every couple of minutes?
Only you....
So this is another invented thing you came up with that nobody is talking about!


Well, I don't know your Houserule. Do you like forbid a player from asking more then ten questions together and only one ''block'' of questions every two hours or something?

Tinkerer
2017-09-06, 12:50 PM
The strawmanning is really starting to get quite sad here. For starters the majority of fiction (particularly in the modern age) is a collaboration between at least two people since there is pretty much always an editor going over the work and providing input. In the examples which you listed earlier of comic books, Lost, and Once upon a Time there were people writing the script ranging from 1 person (as a rarity in comic books and these are usually the worst books such as Marville) to 20 people. Hollywood writing rooms really don't just work based on one person with a script.

Plus:

Sure, except a PbP is not the same as a real life game. In real life I can say a description quick, but I'm not going to type out 50,000 words of text(even more so on my phone).

I know you were talking about providing more information than an average GM but if you are regularly busting out 50 000 word descriptions you might be going just the tiniest bit overboard.

I think that everyone can see the problem here. Some GM didn't like the idea of his players knowing anything about teh ultra kewl world which was made up so they came up with a houserule that killed the Knowledge skill. Only they didn't just remove it because that would make sense so they instead made it a trap option which would return dangerous and incorrect information if someone used it. If that's how you want to run things then that's fine.

Friv
2017-09-06, 01:14 PM
No. Try re-reading what I've written. I know you can do it, buddy.
I believe in you.

This was your first mistake.

;)

Koo Rehtorb
2017-09-06, 01:18 PM
Poe's Law all up in here.

Darth Ultron
2017-09-06, 05:02 PM
The strawmanning is really starting to get quite sad here. For starters the majority of fiction (particularly in the modern age) is a collaboration between at least two people

Odd everyone uses collaboration to mean ''anyone that works near someone else''. In just about all cases an editor is all powerful, much like a normal classical DM. If and when an editor changes something a writer wrote, the writer has just about no options other then ''accept it''.

And I guess your going to count the camera operator as collaborating with the writer to create the movie too?



I know you were talking about providing more information than an average GM but if you are regularly busting out 50 000 word descriptions you might be going just the tiniest bit overboard.

I've said I'm a big on details DM. Some DM's are like ''eh, there is boring stuff...ok, Roll Playing time! 20 drow stand in a clear empty field and are surprised, you may roll and have your characters attack!'' , but that is not my type of game.



I think that everyone can see the problem here. Some GM didn't like the idea of his players knowing anything about teh ultra kewl world which was made up so they came up with a houserule that killed the Knowledge skill. Only they didn't just remove it because that would make sense so they instead made it a trap option which would return dangerous and incorrect information if someone used it. If that's how you want to run things then that's fine.

There is no problem, I like the players to find out about the world by playing the game in it. Not just sitting there and saying ''Dm tell me stuff''.

Cluedrew
2017-09-06, 05:14 PM
Well, ok, can you explain how you do this? It seems to me that this ''4th way'' is just the player control way.

Like assuming the game has a figurehead DM that just does what the players want...I'm arguing that you can't assume that.

But how do you do it? Generally everyone just throws some things into the game and accepts that those things might be grabbed by someone else and pulled a way they weren't expecting. Simple example, the GM in our games often doesn't have a quest in mind. Instead one or more of the characters' personal missions will drive the main plot. Still they will throw the threats they feel are appropriate in front of us, so you shouldn't call the player with the quest a co-GM.

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-06, 05:38 PM
To say they are collaborative is a long way from what your talking about though.
Maybe if you can't comprehend basic english. Otherwise, my point has been consistent in stating that a midway point exists.




So, once, a writer/actor/director did a whole scene (minus a camera guy, sound guy, grip and such) for one movie.....so by your logic all movies are like that all the time?

Not even a little bit close. Brush up on those reading skills, friend.




So player controlled game then. Like I said. I just wonder why your so against admitting it?

Because that is equally inaccurate. As a GM, I play as the World and the NPCs in a way that makes logical sense and will react to players accordingly. There is no set plot or need to string players along on it. They get to prioritize which problems they want to deal with, and how. I, being the world, push back in ways that logically follow. (If the PCs piss off a major warlord, they can expect smashy shooty problems. If they piss off a corporate overlord, they may find themselves in financial or legal troubles. The may piss of neither. They may piss off both. Up to their decisions.

What ends up coming from this style has never been a simple plot. In fact, a lot of what happens is fairly convoluted and nuanced since different NPCs have different relationships with PCs.

It doesn't fit your mold, but I did in with D&D for years before I found systems I like better.



The conclusion is more ''people don't want to admit what they do'' and ''all ways want to pretend to be different''.
"Is it that my 3 boxes fail to account for all possible methods of GMing? No. People must secretly be lying!"
Maybe try Occam's Razor, buddy. It's less likely that there's a mass conspiracy than that your boxes are wrong.



A normal traditional game, of the type we are talking about, has one DM, and several players. So only have the DM in control or the players in control or no body in control. You can't have ''everyone shares control as DM and Player are not equal and the same'' and as there are more players then DM's, that is player control.
This is a non-sequiteur. That DMs and PCs have different roles does not mean narrative authority for things like "Which faction do the characters prefer" is impossible to split or move around the table. It just means the DM has a larger slice of the pie, but everyone still gets a good portion of pie.
What you argue for is that the DM has 99% of the pie and everyone else splits the last 1%. I'm suggesting that there are many percentages between, and I usually do more of a 60/40 or 70/30 split, with an occassional 50/50 if the game is better for it. And it may shift multiple times in the same scene.



But if you do insist on some sort of shared control, I'd ask how you do it? And remember I'm only talking about games, like D&D that have a Dm and players. I know there are tons of games made by the ''D&D haters'' that do the more group hug care and share cooperation game, but those are whole other games.
Im not going to be able to give you an example without you nitpicking an irrelevant detail. So I'm just gonna not take this bait. Been there, done that.

Suffice to say that I have more control than any individual player, but we all contribute because together we have better ideas than just me alone. Hence why I play TRPGs instead of writing books.... or rather why I do both and consider them to be very different. I don't really need dialogue and minor decisions made for me. I'm plenty good at those. So playing a TRPG to show off my plotwriting skills is a waste of my time. I have other outlets for that. Playing as an organic, living, breathing world that reacts in real time in logical ways to the actions of the characters? Much more interesting of a creative exercise.




Backstories are normally quite detailed. Unless your talking about like just filling in the blanks? Like the backstory just says ''grew up in some city'' because both you and the player don't have time to pick a city. Then later during the game, even more so if it will give the player some advantage, they can just say ''oh my character is from Highport...and all ways has been, wink wink" Or just rewriting history on the whim of the Player? So no matter where the character goes in the game world they will say ''oh, my character was born in this place ".
Being from a place doesn't really grant much advantage beyond having an in on knowing who's who. So I see no reason to disallow it. But I do make notes, so once they decide to be from a place, it's not changing. It's actually very easy.




Well, I don't know your Houserule. Do you like forbid a player from asking more then ten questions together and only one ''block'' of questions every two hours or something?
I've honestly never dealt with that problem at all. I get maybe 5 clarification questions per session (making sure they understand what's happening) and maybe 2 per session about what they might know. Since I usually just begin my descriptions with "You would know this person is...." my players trust that I'm not withholding information they should reasonably know. And if they want to sprinkle in minor details in their speech, eh. Fine by me so long as it doesn't outright contradict.
For instance, complimenting a Duke who does a lot of expeditionary trips on his latest expedition success a-ok, even if I didn't mention one specifically. It makes sense that he had one recently, he goes on a lot of them. Where he went is likely not relevant.

Asking the kindly widower who runs the Orphanage about that time she murdered 20 puppies will either be taken as a really poor-taste joke, or as an opportunity to see if someone is confused.

But this doesn't fit your 3-box model at all, so I'm probably going to be accused of lying by the guy who has yet to accurately sum up any of my points.
Pre-emptive irony? Yes. Yes it is.

Friv
2017-09-06, 06:08 PM
"Is it that my 3 boxes fail to account for all possible methods of GMing? No. People must secretly be lying!"
Maybe try Occam's Razor, buddy. It's less likely that there's a mass conspiracy than that your boxes are wrong.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/645/713/888.jpg

Tinkerer
2017-09-06, 06:58 PM
Odd everyone uses collaboration to mean ''anyone that works near someone else''. In just about all cases an editor is all powerful, much like a normal classical DM. If and when an editor changes something a writer wrote, the writer has just about no options other then ''accept it''.

And I guess your going to count the camera operator as collaborating with the writer to create the movie too?



I've said I'm a big on details DM. Some DM's are like ''eh, there is boring stuff...ok, Roll Playing time! 20 drow stand in a clear empty field and are surprised, you may roll and have your characters attack!'' , but that is not my type of game.



There is no problem, I like the players to find out about the world by playing the game in it. Not just sitting there and saying ''Dm tell me stuff''.

Huh... Koo Rehtorb I think you may be correct on the Poe's Law assessment.

First off you were saying that the writer is the GM now you're saying that the editor is? Where does the director fit into things? Do you remember saying "Well, sure most films and TV show episodes and books have one writer"? And really I guess it depends on the production. If the cinematographer is the camera operator then one could count the camera operator as collaborating with the writer since the cinematographer collaborates with the director who collaborates with the writer (although considering the writer usually isn't involved much once shooting starts I guess that would put the writer in the position of the company making the RPG?).

Secondly you are honestly saying that you spend 6.5 hours straight describing one scene? That's how long it takes on average to say 50 000 words. As I've said I often have sessions where there is no combat at all and at most (with that one very rare exception) combat takes up about 60%. But instead you raise up your strawman again and say "If you are not doing things my way then obviously you are just a roll player with no attention to detail".

And thirdly the problem that I was referring to was a fundamental lack of understanding as is expressed by misrepresenting everybody's points. You've presented no compelling arguments, you've proven that you are incapable of understanding a person by being unable to address their points without ignoring what was said, you've expressed joy at chasing people away from the hobby... heck joy at making people cry (I still hope that one was hyperbole), and on remembering that note I'm forced to ask myself what the **** am I still doing here.

My apologies to everyone for helping to drag this out. It's like talking to a Flat Earth Society member, sometimes you are just so fascinated by the lack of logic that it's almost hypnotizing.

Darth Ultron
2017-09-06, 09:58 PM
I'm arguing that you can't assume that.

But how do you do it? Generally everyone just throws some things into the game and accepts that those things might be grabbed by someone else and pulled a way they weren't expecting. Simple example, the GM in our games often doesn't have a quest in mind. Instead one or more of the characters' personal missions will drive the main plot. Still they will throw the threats they feel are appropriate in front of us, so you shouldn't call the player with the quest a co-GM.

But, again, your talking more ''before the game''. Like everyone shows up to play a game, and the DM is like ''I got nothing''. Everyone just sits at the table and does nothing. Then player two says ''hey lets go kill the dragon that attacked my home town and killed my family!'' The other players say ''ok'', and the DM says ''we will do that!''.

And ok, that is all fine. It's even normal: the player just suggested something. It's not the player taking control of the game and telling the DM what to do.

So I'm talking about all the game play after that.





It doesn't fit your mold, but I did in with D&D for years before I found systems I like better.

You could have just save a lot of time by saying ''my game is random and has no plot''.



This is a non-sequiteur. That DMs and PCs have different roles does not mean narrative authority for things like "Which faction do the characters prefer" is impossible to split or move around the table. It just means the DM has a larger slice of the pie, but everyone still gets a good portion of pie.
What you argue for is that the DM has 99% of the pie and everyone else splits the last 1%. I'm suggesting that there are many percentages between, and I usually do more of a 60/40 or 70/30 split, with an occassional 50/50 if the game is better for it. And it may shift multiple times in the same scene.


Not really sure what your saying here.

Like four people say ''hey lets go to Taco Bell!'' So the four people get into a car. One Driver, and Three Passengers. The Driver controls the whole drive and trip: the route, the speed and so on. A passenger can say ''take the Evergreen Parkway'' or complain ''your driving too slow'', but the driver can ignore them or listen as do as they ask.

In your version each person takes one part of the car to control, so one has the gas pedal, one the break petal, one the turn signal and one the steering wheel...and, well, as that is impossible the car goes nowhere(or rolls for a couple feet and crashes into something).

Im not going to be able to give you an example without you nitpicking an irrelevant detail. So I'm just gonna not take this bait. Been there, done that.




Playing as an organic, living, breathing world that reacts in real time in logical ways to the actions of the characters? Much more interesting of a creative exercise.

Guess this is where I can say ''just as you keep saying something does not make it true''.

And your saying your game ''comes alive'' and ''takes control''? You might need some fresh air....



Being from a place doesn't really grant much advantage beyond having an in on knowing who's who. So I see no reason to disallow it. But I do make notes, so once they decide to be from a place, it's not changing. It's actually very easy.

So, in your session zero, you don't do much on the role playing side and filling in details like even a simple ''10 minute background'' for the player characters? But you let each player, randomly on a whim, fill in details about their character just ''once''? Ok...well, it's a little weird.



I've honestly never dealt with that problem at all. I get maybe 5 clarification questions per session (making sure they understand what's happening) and maybe 2 per session about what they might know.


So you run a simple game. Got it.



But this doesn't fit your 3-box model at all, so I'm probably going to be accused of lying by the guy who has yet to accurately sum up any of my points.
Pre-emptive irony? Yes. Yes it is.

Your more confused then anything. You sort of say the DM has ''most'' of the control in the game, but are quick to say the players have ''some''. But you leave it kind of vague as to who controls what. And then you said your game is random and has no plot, so it really does not matter anyway.

You have never given a game example, but lets try a basic one:

So I write up a whole adventure including maps, stats, handouts, and a plot. (You do none of that)
Some goblin bandits start to raid the main road from Mudport (I know it's a plot and you don't use plots, so for your game lets just say the town falls out of the sky on top of the characters). The town mayor puts out a call for help from adventures (in your game this is where the Mayor NPC would come alive and do this for you). So the normal players in my game would have their characters accept this job (well, your players would still be wandering around at random...but lets just say they randomly want to do this ). Now in my normal game the players only have one choice: their characters must go find the bandits hideout and stop the raids. That is the plot. It does not matter ''how'' they do it, but they must do that (see it's that one way thing I mentioned before) (Now in your game the characters can pick from like six ways to stop the raids that all do not involve the characters interacting with the bandits at all (because you don't do the whole ''the characters must encounter the bandits'' plot that I do(and don't have a plot too) So...something happens in your game....).

So I have made an ''adventure'' and a ''plot.'' (You have made neither). I will lead the player characters through the adventure plot. (You will do something?) Like part of my plot (Part 1,Encounter 3) is the two goblins that sneak over to a Mudpot farm to steal chickens. Using my DM Agency, I will make sure the characters discover this fact and lead them right to the farm. It's ''up'' to the players what they want to do: they might just kill the goblins, they might capture them, or they might do something clever like follow them back to the hideout. But Encounter three will happen. (So your game has no adventure, encounters or plot....so, something random happens?)

In my game the players have no control over the game what so ever. As players they have agreed to just ''play'' a single character in the game and not be a ''side table Dm''. They are free to have their characters act and do things within the rules and the game reality, but that is it. Things will happen around the characters (like encounters), and the players can choose what they do. (somehow, your game is different....and something happens )

So this is a vague description of a start of a game (part 1 of 2), maybe you can fill in the blanks?




First off you were saying that the writer is the GM now you're saying that the editor is?

Movies are just really not a good example....except for maybe just Director(DM) and Actors(Players)?



Secondly you are honestly saying that you spend 6.5 hours straight describing one scene?

I'd break it up into shorter segments.



And thirdly the problem that I was referring to was a fundamental lack of understanding as is expressed by misrepresenting everybody's points. You've presented no compelling arguments, you've proven that you are incapable of understanding a person by being unable to address their points without ignoring what was said, you've expressed joy at chasing people away from the hobby... heck joy at making people cry (I still hope that one was hyperbole), and on remembering that note I'm forced to ask myself what the **** am I still doing here.

I think my argument is compelling, maybe you don't as your just doing the old ''he is wrong'' thing?

The ''points'' I see are ''that I am wrong'' and ''oh my game is different special''. I ask how, and they just say ''oh it is''. I ask again and they say ''something vague''. So I take the something vague and say it like it is: they say ''my game has not plot'', so I say ''so your game is a random mess?''; then they get all angry and say ''oh no my game has a lineal step by step way of doing things in order that make sense based around a single idea and out come''; I say ''um, that would be a plot''; And they scream back ''NO! Plots are bad wrong fun!" and the insults start.



My apologies to everyone for helping to drag this out. It's like talking to a Flat Earth Society member, sometimes you are just so fascinated by the lack of logic that it's almost hypnotizing.

I'm a Flat Earth Society member. Oh, and the New World Order used HARP to make Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma. And they are spraying us everyday with Chemtrails!

Cluedrew
2017-09-07, 06:38 AM
But, again, your talking more ''before the game''.Its both before and during actually. And yes it is in many regards it is closer to the GM controlled game, as they are the one who does a lot of the putting together and adds the reactions from the world. But in some regards it is like a player controlled game (I think, never played an entirely player controlled game) in that the PCs are the proactive element and tend to be the ones driving the plot.

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-07, 06:58 AM
You could have just save a lot of time by saying ''my game is random and has no plot''.
Not random, but has no plot, either would be correct.
This description is wrong, so I wouldn't use it.




Not really sure what your saying here.

Like four people say ''hey lets go to Taco Bell!'' So the four people get into a car. One Driver, and Three Passengers. The Driver controls the whole drive and trip: the route, the speed and so on. A passenger can say ''take the Evergreen Parkway'' or complain ''your driving too slow'', but the driver can ignore them or listen as do as they ask.

In your version each person takes one part of the car to control, so one has the gas pedal, one the break petal, one the turn signal and one the steering wheel...and, well, as that is impossible the car goes nowhere(or rolls for a couple feet and crashes into something).
Actually, me and some friends did exactly what your second option entails. Driver on brakes, I have long legs and handled the gas, one person in the backseat reaching forward to steer, and another on the shifter.

Do I recommend it? No. Not safe even a little. But we did successfully drive 4 miles to a Burger King.



Im not going to be able to give you an example without you nitpicking an irrelevant detail. So I'm just gonna not take this bait. Been there, done that.

This only works if someone nitpicks details, not questions large and glaring logical problems.
Good try, though.




Guess this is where I can say ''just as you keep saying something does not make it true''.

Difference being: I'm reporting on my own game. I would know.
You are trying to inform me of what my game is, which you know diddly about, and repetitively giving me inaccurate summaries.



And your saying your game ''comes alive'' and ''takes control''? You might need some fresh air....
I literally said neither of those things.
I think the one having delusions is you, since you keep responding to things I and no one else is saying.



So, in your session zero, you don't do much on the role playing side and filling in details like even a simple ''10 minute background'' for the player characters?
Not what I said and an inaccurate inference. Not all details are relevant at the start. If someone has been wandering for a few years and that's more important than their birthplacd for the first few sessions, then I'm not going to chafe. Because that detail is very minor in 99% of cases. When it is more important, it is usually talked about.



But you let each player, randomly on a whim, fill in details about their character just ''once''? Ok...well, it's a little weird.
Once per detail, yes. You weren't born twice.
Context clues, buddy. Use 'em.




So you run a simple game. Got it.

Ah yes, the simple straightforwardness of 8 warring factions having corporate and literal war, with different goals for each PC, betrayal and alliance and hiring of mercs and PCs alike...

PCs having influence in these operations, deciding who to support and who to work against, navigating a literal chunk of galaxy.

You have not even the slightest clue what you're talking about.



Your more confused then anything. You sort of say the DM has ''most'' of the control in the game, but are quick to say the players have ''some''.
You seem confused by this entirely reasonable statement. One person having Most of the control while others have Some control is very common. Especially in Government.



But you leave it kind of vague as to who controls what. And then you said your game is random and has no plot, so it really does not matter anyway.
You're still 50% incorrect.
It isn't random, and I don't plan a plot.
By the end, a plot tends to have emerged. This is called Emergent Narrative, and is how I play.
It's been a thing long enough that it has its own term.



You have never given a game example, but lets try a basic one:

So I write up a whole adventure including maps, stats, handouts, and a plot. (You do none of that)
I do none of that based on....?
You're making things up again, silly!
I do maps, stats, and the occassional handout that covers the most important information. In fact, I'm currently working on a setting for a superhero game happening in modern New Orleans. (Makes the map bit slightly easier, but I still have to draw out gang territories and any significantly different landmarks.)

I just don't do a pre-planned plot. Emergent Narrative is my thing.



Some goblin bandits start to raid the main road from Mudport (I know it's a plot and you don't use plots, so for your game lets just say the town falls out of the sky on top of the characters).
You may be confusing a Location (a particular place or position) with a Plot (the main events of a play, novel, movie, or similar work, devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence.)
Those are two entirely different things, and I want some of whatever you're smoking that is fuzzing up that difference for you.



The town mayor puts out a call for help from adventures (in your game this is where the Mayor NPC would come alive and do this for you).
In my game the town mayor would do what logically makes sense. Which happens to be requesting help, if the local guards are insufficient.



So the normal players in my game would have their characters accept this job (well, your players would still be wandering around at random...but lets just say they randomly want to do this ). Now in my normal game the players only have one choice: their characters must go find the bandits hideout and stop the raids. That is the plot. It does not matter ''how'' they do it, but they must do that (see it's that one way thing I mentioned before) (Now in your game the characters can pick from like six ways to stop the raids that all do not involve the characters interacting with the bandits at all (because you don't do the whole ''the characters must encounter the bandits'' plot that I do(and don't have a plot too) So...something happens in your game....).
DU, I get the sense that you've come unravelled. Nested parentheses for days. I guess it's disarming when your smug condescension meets more effective, smugger condescension.

I present a situation. Several, usually. In reality many problems happen at once rather than neatly lining up to be dealt with one at a time in your more simplistic games.

In MY game, the goblins are attacking mudport, meanwhile the Sheriff of Dirthome is behaving strangely and many believe him to be cursed, the Mayor of Clogville has gone missing, and The North Mudland Caravan company has lost a lucrative caravan and would like if someone could recover the materials, please. All of these things are happening, with their own consequences if left unchecked. (Goblins will become more aggressive, the Sheriff will become actively psychotic and violent and succumb to the curse, the Mayor of Clogville will never make it back and the town will have resultant power vacuum issues, and North Mudland Caravan Company will weaken in its hold and trade routes to Mudland will suffer, making things more expensive. All this assuming they are left unchecked.) In a complex game like mine, the characters need to choose a problem to solve from many, rather than having problems form an orderly queue like in your simplistic plots.



So I have made an ''adventure'' and a ''plot.'' (You have made neither). I will lead the player characters through the adventure plot. (You will do something?) Like part of my plot (Part 1,Encounter 3) is the two goblins that sneak over to a Mudpot farm to steal chickens. Using my DM Agency, I will make sure the characters discover this fact and lead them right to the farm. It's ''up'' to the players what they want to do: they might just kill the goblins, they might capture them, or they might do something clever like follow them back to the hideout. But Encounter three will happen. (So your game has no adventure, encounters or plot....so, something random happens?)
Goblins gonna gob, it what will happen. Players can ask around or find clues about ways the Goblins are causing problems. (Goblins are rather unorganized and tend to not present a particularly coordinated front, so there are probably several ways the goblins are causing problems, from theft to sabotage to petty vandalism. What the players look into is up to them, but if they've decided to tackle the Goblin problem there's a variety of things to deal with, not just some chickens. They could deal with chicken thieves... or horse killers, or ballista breakers, goblins stealing weapons from the barracks, or any number of irritating goblin behaviors. Of course, I prefer my goblins to have complicated motivations, but you're wanting something simple. Hard for you to follow more than one thing at a time?

Meanwhile the situations elsewhere get worse because nobody is dealing with them effectively.

Heck, the party could even split up to take on different things according to what they're good at! (The kill stuff types go kill gobbos while the investigative types track down the mayor.) Since I'm an actually good GM, I can juggle those two things and maintain interest in both. (It's called doing a Scene Change, and you just do those. Cut back and forth between the two things with a good pace, and leave minor cliffhangers.)




In my game the players have no control over the game what so ever. As players they have agreed to just ''play'' a single character in the game and not be a ''side table Dm''. They are free to have their characters act and do things within the rules and the game reality, but that is it. Things will happen around the characters (like encounters), and the players can choose what they do. (somehow, your game is different....and something happens )
My game is different because it is full of many things happening, not one thing at a time.
My method requires that I participate actively in the session, that I consider ramifications, and try to simulate a living, breathing place. The place won't do it for me, so I have to be simulating it. It is hard work, and I'm tired at the end of every session. But it's the kind of tired you feel at the end of a marathon. Exhausted, but you had a blast and something awesome happened. Except in my brain, not my legs.

And most importantly, everyone, me included, has fun.

I control the world, and the NPCs in it. The story takes care of itself because the PCs do stuff. (The players value a good time over caution at my table, since I've taught them that the good times are where the danger is.)



So this is a vague description of a start of a game (part 1 of 2), maybe you can fill in the blanks?

Your world is mostly blanks except for a thin ribbon of it. Mine is full of things from one map edge to the other.
Because my games are complicated, fun, and evolve constantly. And yours are simple, 1-2-3 checklists.

Jay R
2017-09-07, 08:55 AM
If this conversation has shown us anything, it's that any description of a DM's game is insufficient, and we will not understand how a game goes unless we actually play in it.

ImNotTrevor
2017-09-07, 10:25 AM
If this conversation has shown us anything, it's that any description of a DM's game is insufficient, and we will not understand how a game goes unless we actually play in it.

Yes. My thinly veiled jabs were attempting to reach exactly this point. Once you start informing someone how their table operates, you might as well be attempting to tell them what dream they had last night.

Friv
2017-09-07, 12:53 PM
My apologies to everyone for helping to drag this out. It's like talking to a Flat Earth Society member, sometimes you are just so fascinated by the lack of logic that it's almost hypnotizing.

You're doing a public service, Tinkerer. And now that I've sworn off actually trying to argue with Darth, this thread is a lot more fun to read. I can just post funny gifs in response to things that get said.


Guess this is where I can say ''just as you keep saying something does not make it true''.

And your saying your game ''comes alive'' and ''takes control''? You might need some fresh air....

Your more confused then anything.

I think my argument is compelling, maybe you don't as your just doing the old ''he is wrong'' thing?
https://i.imgflip.com/e9ydq.jpg

Darth Ultron
2017-09-08, 06:19 AM
Its both before and during actually. And yes it is in many regards it is closer to the GM controlled game, as they are the one who does a lot of the putting together and adds the reactions from the world. But in some regards it is like a player controlled game (I think, never played an entirely player controlled game) in that the PCs are the proactive element and tend to be the ones driving the plot.

So how do the players control the game while playing the game?

I'll assume you don't have the sort of game where the players can just say ''in that chest is one million gold coins and a sword+5.

So are you talking about Lazy DMing? Like: Dm-''your characters see a forest full of trees and forest stuff." Player 1-"are there elves in the forest?" DM-"Yes, there are elves in the forest!" Player two-''do they have any elven items for sale?" Dm-'Yup, there is an Elf-Mart! Your characters walk in the door and a 1,000 year old elf says ''welcome to Elf-Mart!''

Or just doing the Quantum Ogre?


If this conversation has shown us anything, it's that any description of a DM's game is insufficient, and we will not understand how a game goes unless we actually play in it.

Only if we could all have like a big convention or something.

Cluedrew
2017-09-08, 07:27 AM
So how do the players control the game while playing the game?

I'll assume you don't have the sort of game where the players can just say ''in that chest is one million gold coins and a sword+5.Of course not! There aren't even sword+5 in the system we use. Getting to the underlying point, do we use the partial control we have over the game to try and make it a cakewalk? No, that would be boring. I suppose if you switched straight from a classic dungeon crawl or challenge based game to that model people might try to do that the first time on reflex, but most people I have seen soon (or immediately) realize that is not the point.

The point is to shape a story. The part of the story you shape is centered around your character, but it doesn't end at their character sheet, it is the people they know, the places they come from and what they are trying to do. And that tends to be a much better story than something you prepared earlier and just slotted in the PCs you got into after the fact, which is what the GM controlled game tends to be.


So are you talking about Lazy DMing?That too, it does result in less work for the GM. Which is a definite advantage in my mind. And its not (just) for people who can't make that stuff up. It is for the people who have busy lives and don't want to spend N hours on top of the X they take to actually run the game. And since the end result is of similar or better quality, I can't complain.

Darth Ultron
2017-09-08, 07:48 AM
Of course not! There aren't even sword+5 in the system we use. Getting to the underlying point, do we use the partial control we have over the game to try and make it a cakewalk? No, that would be boring. I suppose if you switched straight from a classic dungeon crawl or challenge based game to that model people might try to do that the first time on reflex, but most people I have seen soon (or immediately) realize that is not the point.

The point is to shape a story. The part of the story you shape is centered around your character, but it doesn't end at their character sheet, it is the people they know, the places they come from and what they are trying to do. And that tends to be a much better story than something you prepared earlier and just slotted in the PCs you got into after the fact, which is what the GM controlled game tends to be.

If the players are not just being selfish brats or jerks, and are just creating stuff to make the game better...well how does it work?

1.The players are not players, but Co-DM's? So there is ''a person ruing the game ish'' and several people ''playing characters in the game'', but anyone can just say anything anytime and it happens? And everyone just nods and says ''ok''?

Like if Not Player Co-DM Number Three says ''the king has a brother that secretly runs an underground trade ring'' then who gets to ''control'' that NPC? Does Number three control ''his NPC''? And play a player character in the game at the same time? Does DM One get to control the NPC? Can Number Three object and say ''no the npc would not do that he would do this, on a whim"?

2.Are the players more normal players and are just making suggestions that the DM can ignore, use, change and has 100% control over? But the players are good people and can accept that not everything they say the DM automatically uses in like one second.

3.Some other way?





That too, it does result in less work for the GM. Which is a definite advantage in my mind. And its not (just) for people who can't make that stuff up. It is for the people who have busy lives and don't want to spend N hours on top of the X they take to actually run the game. And since the end result is of similar or better quality, I can't complain.

I find most wacky made up on the spot games, even worse run games, are of worse quality.

I'd wonder how you can even do anything other then very, very, very simple cartoon level plots (or ''non plot'' but linear game play or whatever words you want to use). If you want a simple, casual game, then your way is great an works out. It's like playing Checkers instead of Chess: you can still have fun playing Checkers, but it is not ''hard thinking fun''.

Or are you just doing the more looking backwards 'wow' story. Where you just look back at the game play and pretend it was planned all along like a more normal game?

BRC
2017-09-08, 09:46 AM
If the players are not just being selfish brats or jerks, and are just creating stuff to make the game better...well how does it work?

1.The players are not players, but Co-DM's? So there is ''a person ruing the game ish'' and several people ''playing characters in the game'', but anyone can just say anything anytime and it happens? And everyone just nods and says ''ok''?

Like if Not Player Co-DM Number Three says ''the king has a brother that secretly runs an underground trade ring'' then who gets to ''control'' that NPC? Does Number three control ''his NPC''? And play a player character in the game at the same time? Does DM One get to control the NPC? Can Number Three object and say ''no the npc would not do that he would do this, on a whim"?

2.Are the players more normal players and are just making suggestions that the DM can ignore, use, change and has 100% control over? But the players are good people and can accept that not everything they say the DM automatically uses in like one second.

3.Some other way?

This is what I call "Filling in Blanks", and it is subject to some guidelines to make it work.
1) GM has Veto power over all worldbuilding.

2) You never "Fill in the Blanks" to solve a problem you are currently facing or give yourself an immediate advantage. You do it to flesh out the world and give the GM some more material to work with.
For example, it's fine to say " I Have a brother in the City Guard", UNLESS you are currently in need of a contact within the city guard. If you establish it now, that contact might come in handy later, but the GM gets to make the adventure knowing that is the case.

3) Filling in the Blanks should usually be connected to your character somehow.

4) Filling in the Blanks fleshes out existing setting details, it doesn't establish new ones (That's the GM's job).


For example.
If it's pre-established that the City has a thriving criminal underworld, I could say "My rogue has been here before, he did a job for a crime boss named Lucky Lightfoot". That would probably be fine.

If the current adventure involves trying to establish contact with the criminal underworld, then it might be okay to establish that Lucky Lightfoot exists, but not that I've ever worked for him, since that would circumvent the current challenge.

It might be okay to establish 1) That Lucky Lightfoot Exists, and 2) That I've worked for him, BUT 3) It ended badly, and his goons ran me out of town. Now, I've substituted the old challenge (We don't know anybody in the criminal underworld) with a new one (I know Lucky Lightfoot, but he hates me), which might be more interesting.

If I've established that Lucky Lightfoot exists, and that he knows me, the GM can work with that while planning future sessions. That becomes established fact, and any further embellishments follow the same rules. For example, I couldn't start by saying "Lucky Lightfoot Exists, and I know him", then later say "Lucky Lightfoot is my long-lost brother, who would do anything for me".

When a player "Fills in the Blanks", what they're doing is suggesting thins to the GM, who can accept, change, or reject it, just as if it was their own idea. The GM, as always, controls the NPCs (Regardless of who actually came up with the character), and runs the world as normal.

Once, this backfired on me. I made an offhand line implying the existence of a pair of goblin arsonists-for-hire that happened to perfectly fit the DM's planned NPC culprits for the current adventure (it was a city guard mystery campaign). I spent the rest of that arc oblivious, because I assumed I'd invented these NPCs, and the GM just happened to like them, never suspecting that they had basically already existed, and were responsible for the events of that arc.


It's the same thing a player does when they write their character's backstory. Establishing some small setting detail, and follows roughly similar rules. You wouldn't allow a player to make their backstory "I'm the Prince of the Glorious Empire, and I have a legion of 30 elite bodyguards who follow me around and obey my every whim".

Cluedrew
2017-09-08, 07:51 PM
If the players are not just being selfish brats or jerks, and are just creating stuff to make the game better...well how does it work?Referencing your list of possibilities:
I don't think so the players are Co-DMs, but you will have to clarify what you mean by Co-DM for me to be sure.
A lot of elements are the GM pulling on hooks the players put into their back story, or running with the ideas the players give them.
There are other elements in the mix as well, it is not just one thing. The other big one is that the PC's are proactive, they don't just sit around for the monster of the week to show up. Instead they peruse goals that cause interesting situations to come up and the GM doesn't choose those goals. Also things like what BRC said are part of it.


I find most wacky made up on the spot games, even worse run games, are of worse quality. [...] I'd wonder how you can even do anything other then very, very, very simple cartoon level plotsOur GM is kind of awesome. I hope that I will one day be able to run games like that. My games turn into very simple cartoon level plots more often than I would like. I'm still growing. Other than that it is the general idea of two heads are better than one, 4+ people come up with ideas and then we pick the best.


Or are you just doing the more looking backwards 'wow' story. Where you just look back at the game play and pretend it was planned all along like a more normal game?Why would we pretend it was planned all along? I mean we don't because it wasn't, but I'm curious why you would ask that.