PDA

View Full Version : Rant for Game/Content Creators



JoeJ
2020-05-18, 12:49 PM
Stop putting "GM Choice" on random tables!* Please don't do this; it's obnoxious. If I had a good idea of my own, I wouldn't be rolling on the table to begin with. In practice, "GM Choice" just means reroll, which is annoying when I'm doing planning before the game, and ten times more annoying when it happens during play. If you honestly can't think of one more thing to put on the table then drop to a smaller die type or increase the chances of one of the other entries coming up. Don't tell me to do the very thing that I, just moments before, decided not to do.

(*I understand there are some RPGs without a Rule 0, where the GM can not just make things up without explicitly being told to. If you're writing for one of those games, please ignore this rant.)

Nifft
2020-05-18, 01:04 PM
Your rant is good and has my support.


(*I understand there are some RPGs without a Rule 0, where the GM can not just make things up without explicitly being told to. If you're writing for one of those games, please ignore this rant.)

Just as a datapoint, there have been times when my group Rule 0'd a game which did not expect it.

As long as everyone at the table is onboard, IMHO it's morally acceptable to ignore the designer's intentions.

Grod_The_Giant
2020-05-18, 03:16 PM
Preach! white text

Theoboldi
2020-05-18, 03:39 PM
Hear hear!

It's bizarre how many designers don't seem to understand the purpose of the tables and tools they themselves include.

Quertus
2020-05-18, 10:17 PM
Wow. I'm all about ranting about game/content designers (and, boy oh boy am I working on some rant-worthy content as I go back and read some old modules), but I'm actually in agreement with the module writers on this one. Sort of.

There's a quote from a thread I was just reading about how, before one changes a rule, one should really, thoroughly understand just what that rule does.

So, from a purely Simulationist perspective, "GM's choice" is kinda weird. At best, it can represent, "I think there should be more…" or "I think that there should also be…", and leaving a blank space for that customization is actually kinda nice¹.

Perhaps more usefully to the Simulationist, however, is that such entries allow the GM to dovetail the module more seamlessly into their world. Not just "I'll use this as an extra Goblin entry, because my world has more goblins", but even "Wild Placian Yetis could easily live in this region, were it in my world"².

However, when you drop into a Gamist perspective, it's an opportunity for the GM to ask, "is there something that would make the game more fun right now?"

"But wait," you say, "wouldn't the game be better if the GM always asked that?" No. Absolutely not. No!

"Huh?" You may reply, or perhaps even, "Quertus, have you forgotten your meds again?" And I get that my response sounds crazy, I really do. But there is simply a different feel to something that is random vs something that is arbitrary vs something that is (supposedly) "optimized". And my "let the dice fall where they may" contention is that that which is random *is* that which is optimal; *occasionally* reminding the GM to make a call *is* optimal. (EDIT: and, never mind actually continuously acting on it making for a worse game, just the GM *constantly evaluating* what they think might be "best" is an increased cognitive load on the GM)

Lastly, from a combination Gamist / Narrativism PoV, it gives the GM a golden opportunity to say, "huh, we haven't encountered any X, wouldn't it be fun if we did", or any other "wouldn't it be fun for X" without the Simulationists complaining of the GM cheating (especially if the dice are rolled in the open).

Speaking of, it could also give the GM the opportunity to give the *players* the option to choose the encounter / random event / whatever.

So, contrary to what one might expect, I actually consider an occasional, rarely rolled "GM's choice" entry in random tables to be wins all around.

¹ granted, being me, and having mostly had terrible GMs, what this is actually "nice" for, in practice, is for giving the GM the opportunity to explain just how and what type of bad they are (insane, ignorant, clueless of 'realism' or 'versimilitude', etc)

² this, of course, leads to discussions of what the purpose of random encounters themselves are, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Grod_The_Giant
2020-05-19, 12:27 PM
I don't think "GM's choice" as a random table result is a GNS question, because it's always an opinion, whether it's an explicit listing or not. If I have a cool idea for an encounter/treasure/npc/whatever, I'll just do that without bothering to roll. Tables are for when the GM doesn't have a good idea of what they want.

FaerieGodfather
2020-05-19, 12:56 PM
100% support for your stance on this.

Practical solution: Most of the time, you can substitute "GM's Choice" with "Reroll Twice". Sure, that's still you having to roll again... but it's rolling again for a meaningful result, instead of just skipping a gap in the table.

Quertus
2020-05-19, 02:16 PM
I don't think "GM's choice" as a random table result is a GNS question, because it's always an opinion, whether it's an explicit listing or not. If I have a cool idea for an encounter/treasure/npc/whatever, I'll just do that without bothering to roll. Tables are for when the GM doesn't have a good idea of what they want.

You know, I was honestly really hoping you'd express why your stance differed from mine. :smallbiggrin:

Hmmm… ignore GNS - I just use the words to help ground what I'm saying; here, they might be more distraction than communication aid.

So… imagine you're at a table where all rolls are in the open, and the players will call you a cheater and beat you up in the parking lot if you deviate from the published stats in any way. A bit extreme, perhaps, but might that gaming culture give you a different perspective on the GM usurping the published tables?

A bit less extreme - and coming from the opposite direction - but can you imagine a GM who was stuck in a rut, and would never even imagine adding their own cool ideas (or be able to work up the mental energy to even think about it) if the table didn't prompt them to do so?

I've seen both (if slightly less extreme).

Speaking for myself (a very "let the dice fall where they may" advocate), tables are for when the GM wants to be nondeterministic, but fair.

Sure, I realize that there are… less versimilitude-driven, more GM-driven gaming styles than "let the dice fall where they may". But you realize that there are more versimilitude-driven, less GM-driven styles than "let the GM pick whatever they want, all the time", and that those aren't BadWrongFun, right?

Or do you think that such playstyles are so inherently suboptimal as to be worth considering jettisoning? I know you've talked against many toxic paths in the past, so maybe this is just hitting me at a blind spot, but… I don't consider "GM chooses whenever they want, all the time" to inherently be a given in all possible good gaming styles - especially not when, say, running a published module.

Am I missing something obvious here?


Practical solution: Most of the time, you can substitute "GM's Choice" with "Reroll Twice". Sure, that's still you having to roll again... but it's rolling again for a meaningful result, instead of just skipping a gap in the table.

One thing I like to do in my own "modules" is to make all random encounters "and roll again". That way, just because you've had an encounter, you don't know that you're magically safe from encounters for the next X hours.

Also, as player or GM, I personally love when the party happens upon two random encounters that have encountered each other. :smallbiggrin:

prabe
2020-05-19, 02:33 PM
Sometimes the random tables are for when the GM doesn't know what they don't want. Or, for determining a sequence of things the GM has placed--A and B are both in the area and mobile; which does the party encounter first? That doesn't change the frustration with "GM's Choice": If you're throwing the choice to the table, for whatever reason, being asked to choose is ... unhelpful, at best (and part of the reason I write up my own encounter tables, as part of writing up my own adventures).

Composer99
2020-05-19, 02:34 PM
I'm not really sure how the first extreme example helps here?

The point being made is that, if a DM/GM wants to determine something randomly (for whatever reason), it is unhelpful for the random table to oblige them to make a choice on their own. The whole point of using the random table is to not have to do that. That's true whether the DM/GM is having a moment of indecision, is just following along the module instructions, or has a philosophical or playstyle preference favouring such tools etc. etc.


[C]an you imagine a GM who was stuck in a rut, and would never even imagine adding their own cool ideas (or be able to work up the mental energy to even think about it) if the table didn't prompt them to do so?


This is a reasonable concern. Having stated that, if you (in this case being a game or module designer) want to include reminders that DMs/GMs can use their own judgement and preferences to determine "the thing" - whatever it may be - in lieu of rolling on a random table, it would be better, in my view, to include such reminders or encouragements in the text surrounding the table.

Edit to add: I realise after some thought that I left out a case here that you were raising: the case where the "table culture" (as it were) disapproves of direct DM/GM decision-making for a lot of "the things" - unless permitted to do so by the random result, in which case it is acceptable. This is what you appear to be getting across with your first example; speaking for myself I got distracted by its extremeness.

If the "table culture" is a result of mistrust of the DM/GM (warranted or not), that is an out-of-game dysfunction that ought to be resolved out-of-game.

If the "table culture" is the result of the DM/GM being new and not being confident in their decisions, it seems to me that in that case an entry giving the DM/GM the option of using their discretion (or obliging them to do so) is unnecessary in and of itself.

If the "table culture" is a result of very strong gameplay preferences by players and/or DM/GM, then I can see how the lack of a "DM/GM discretion" result on the table might be an issue. TBH I still think it would be better if the DM/GM is granted sufficient discretion, as part of the "table culture" or social compact, to make decisions on their own initiative in lieu of consulting a random table when they feel either that their idea is better than the table results, or that some specific outcome already found on the table is the best for the situation without having to have it come up on a die roll.

Nifft
2020-05-19, 02:39 PM
The point being made is that, if a DM/GM wants to determine something randomly (for whatever reason), it is unhelpful for the random table to oblige them to make a choice on their own. The whole point of using the random table is to not have to do that.

Yeah that's exactly where I usually am when I reach for one.

It's the times when I have no clear preference (for whatever reason), so I use the random table for inspiration.

Telling me to go with my non-existent preference defeats the entire point of bothering to find the table and roll on it in the first place.

JoeJ
2020-05-19, 02:58 PM
Yeah that's exactly where I usually am when I reach for one.

It's the times when I have no clear preference (for whatever reason), so I use the random table for inspiration.

Telling me to go with my non-existent preference defeats the entire point of bothering to find the table and roll on it in the first place.

Exactly. GM choice is the default. The table should fill in when I can't/don't want to make something up myself.

Aotrs Commander
2020-05-19, 03:15 PM
Sometimes the random tables are for when the GM doesn't know what they don't want.

The value of being able to rigidly define your areas of doubt and uncertainty cannot be undervalued.

I mean that quite genuinely, it's frequently one of the main benefits for me to post stuff on the forums for rules-discussions or brain-storming.

GrayDeath
2020-05-19, 04:38 PM
You mean OVERvalued, right?



As for the OP: I ahve only seen the GM/DM Choice in tables of games that normally expoect very close adherence to "the Intended way to play it" without much wiggle room so I have no bad experience with them, but I can understand your PoV.

Grod_The_Giant
2020-05-19, 05:53 PM
Speaking for myself (a very "let the dice fall where they may" advocate), tables are for when the GM wants to be nondeterministic, but fair.

Sure, I realize that there are… less versimilitude-driven, more GM-driven gaming styles than "let the dice fall where they may". But you realize that there are more versimilitude-driven, less GM-driven styles than "let the GM pick whatever they want, all the time", and that those aren't BadWrongFun, right?

Or do you think that such playstyles are so inherently suboptimal as to be worth considering jettisoning? I know you've talked against many toxic paths in the past, so maybe this is just hitting me at a blind spot, but… I don't consider "GM chooses whenever they want, all the time" to inherently be a given in all possible good gaming styles - especially not when, say, running a published module.

Am I missing something obvious here?
I think you might be? Randomness absolutely has a place in RPGs-- your identification of tables as "nondeterministic, but fair" is spot-on. There are times when it should be the GM's choice, and there are times when letting the dice fall where they may is more appropriate and more fun. (For what it's worth, my philosophy is that the GM's role is to present interesting stuff-- characters, challenges, scenes, whatever-- for the players to interact with, and to adjudicate the consequences in a generally impartial way, but with a bias towards player enjoyment and the opportunity for more interesting stuff. With the knowledge that what counts as "interesting" and "enjoyable" is strongly group-dependent).

The thing about "GM's choice" as a table result is that it completely undermines that role. The result isn't random anymore, it isn't impartial anymore. To take your extreme examples again, the "beat up the DM if they change the module" group will still be unhappy about a customize result, and the burnt out GM isn't magically going to have a good idea just because a table told them too. The GM chose, for whatever reason, to leave this particular decision to chance, and they're getting the ball thrown right back at them.

Does that make more sense?

(It's also worth noting a secondary, less-philosophical-more-practical issue with "GM's choice"-- a lot of the time tables get used to generate encounters or whatever quickly.)

Nifft
2020-05-19, 06:02 PM
Hmm.

What if, instead of GM's option, it was Player's option?

"Hey peeps, quick email, I rolled 100 on tomorrow's wilderness encounter table. What do you want to encounter?"

kyoryu
2020-05-20, 12:31 PM
I'm okay with it, personally.

If I'm running a game with random tables, I'm probably using them structurally* rather than from an "I don't know what I want" perspective. Having the random results table then includes results that maybe seem low probability and can enrich things.

Putting "GM's choice" on the chart then gives an explicit slot to go wild and do whatever. Yes, I always can do that, but if I'm using the table structurally in the first place, leaning on that is kind of the point.

That said, at that point a reroll, or even two rerolls, take my preference is always a valid option.

*By "structurally" I mean things like random encounter tables in dungeons or wilderness, where the random encounters are there to represent risk and general cost of travel rather than having a designed/plot/etc. reason. Which is very different from "hrm, we should have an encounter, but I don't know what".

Telok
2020-05-20, 02:35 PM
I've only been annoyed by "gm choice" when it comes up more than two or three percent of the time.

The old random encounter tables with 2d10 and choice on 20 were fine by me. Percentile reincarnate tables with 00 as choice/other were fine.

Not fine? D20 tables with it. Comes up too often.

Tyrrell
2020-05-20, 02:53 PM
You said some games don't have a rule 0. Which games are these?

I'm racking my brains and I've come up with Rune, by Atlas games, some of the Hogshead new style games (like Pantheon, Baron VonMunchausen), and some war games that were marketed as RPG's back in ancient times when RPG's were the hot newness (Car Wars).

RPGs that are all arguably not really RPG's. Can anyone show me an RPG that's both clearly an RPG and also doesn't have a rule 0?

CarpeGuitarrem
2020-05-20, 04:02 PM
There's a nugget of wisdom that if you can't decide on a course of action, decide randomly. If you don't like the result, then you've learned something about the decision you wanted to make. I think this is similar; a lot of times, I may not have a specific idea out of the aether, but if I look at a table of options, one of them winds up inspiring me.

I think there's a real value to that for some personality types, and it doesn't hurt anything to explicitly remind players, especially new GMs, that the tables exist to give ideas, which means you can always choose freely.

prabe
2020-05-20, 04:39 PM
There's a nugget of wisdom that if you can't decide on a course of action, decide randomly. If you don't like the result, then you've learned something about the decision you wanted to make. I think this is similar; a lot of times, I may not have a specific idea out of the aether, but if I look at a table of options, one of them winds up inspiring me.

The way I learned it was to reduce your options to two, then flip a coin. If you find yourself hoping for one outcome, do that; otherwise, go with the coin flip. Given TRPG dice, there's no reason you couldn't pick some other number; if you do, and you find yourself hoping against an outcome, remove it and re-roll (probably with a different die, of course).

JoeJ
2020-05-20, 07:07 PM
You said some games don't have a rule 0. Which games are these?

I'm racking my brains and I've come up with Rune, by Atlas games, some of the Hogshead new style games (like Pantheon, Baron VonMunchausen), and some war games that were marketed as RPG's back in ancient times when RPG's were the hot newness (Car Wars).

RPGs that are all arguably not really RPG's. Can anyone show me an RPG that's both clearly an RPG and also doesn't have a rule 0?

I've heard that Apocalypse Engine doesn't, although I've never played it or read the rules myself so I don't have personal knowledge of that. The reason I allowed the exception is that I have learned not to make absolute statements about what all RPGs do. Inevitably, anytime I do that, somebody will bring up an example of a game I've never heard of that does things differently.

Quertus
2020-05-20, 07:39 PM
That… was a lot of really good replies! Kudos!

So… let's see if I've got this straight: "GM's choice" on a random table is born out of a particular gaming mindset; disliking the entry indicates either failure to understand that mindset, or understanding but rejecting the mindset under which the table (and, by extension, the system / module, if applicable) was written.

In one camp are those who believe that the GM should remain neutral, and never have / make a choice. They feel that "GM's choice" should not be on the table, because it undermines the whole neutrality of the GM.

In a second camp are those who feel that the GM should *always* have a choice, and the table exists only for when the GM doesn't care. They feel that "GM's choice" should not be on the table, because it undermines the whole point of offloading the choice to a table.

In a third camp are the Gygaxian Illusionists, who believe that the only reason the GM rolls dice is for the sound. They don't care what's on the table, although "GMs choice" probably sounds like a good cover for those times when they don't instantly know what they want.

Then there's the mixed camp, that believes GM neutrality should occasionally be tempered with conscious choice - not when the GM wants to, but at random intervals. They are the ones who made these tables (and, by extension, modules/systems).

There may be other camps.

(I hypothesize the existence of a camp that believes GM neutrality should occasionally be tempered with conscious choice when the GM so desires. They likely give the GM a certain budget of "beanies" or whatever to spend in overruling Arangee, and would almost certainly find "GM's choice" as a table entry to be distasteful, as it defeats (or at least runs contrary to) the entire purpose of their beanie system.)

Interestingly, unlike the other camps, the mixed camp(s) are rather divided. They can readily disagree on how often the GM should get a say, as well as whether / how often the *players* should actually be the ones overruling Arangee.

Clearly (given my original post), I belong to the mixed camp, at least insofar as things that @kyoryu would refer to as "structural" are concerned. I care about the… differences in feel between "random", "arbitrary", and "optimized", and generally prefer the lack of dissonance inherent in ostensibly random events feeling, well, random. I acknowledge that "GM's choice" has a place, and when it occurs at random intervals, I suppose, it does not detract from the feeling of randomness (even if, if peered at closely enough, perhaps it should?).

Does that… make sense? Reveal any gaping holes in my understanding of the topic?

prabe
2020-05-20, 07:51 PM
There may be other camps.


This isn't so much a misunderstanding of the broad topic, as perhaps a misunderstanding of at least one position. It is possible for a GM to decide not to decide (realizing that he still has made a choice, of course), and in that instance asking him to choose is still undermining him, for different reasons than you say. So, maybe you're not so much misunderstanding as not seeing another way to the same place, eh?

JoeJ
2020-05-20, 11:26 PM
In a second camp are those who feel that the GM should *always* have a choice, and the table exists only for when the GM doesn't care. They feel that "GM's choice" should not be on the table, because it undermines the whole point of offloading the choice to a table.

One correction: it's not that the GM should always have a choice, but that the GM does always have a choice (at least in the games I'm familiar with. This obviously doesn't apply if there's a game without a Rule 0.) Having a "GM choice" entry on the table is telling the GM to do something they have already decided not to do.

Put another way, the reason I'm rolling is that I have no preference for this particular detail. For the table to tell me "pick whatever you prefer" is therefore absurd.

Psyren
2020-05-21, 02:19 AM
Practical solution: Most of the time, you can substitute "GM's Choice" with "Reroll Twice". Sure, that's still you having to roll again... but it's rolling again for a meaningful result, instead of just skipping a gap in the table.

I like this idea.

In instances where combining the two results would either be nonsensical or punishing, you could average them, pick the higher or lower one, let the players choose between the two options, or just flip a coin.

MoiMagnus
2020-05-21, 04:46 AM
My understanding of the "GM choice" entry is that similarly to "Nothing happen" kind of entries, they try to guide the DM on how often they should use stereotypical expected results, and how often they should get crazy and try to find an event unlikely to happen.

LudicSavant
2020-05-21, 05:18 AM
Stop putting "GM Choice" on random tables!* Please don't do this; it's obnoxious. If I had a good idea of my own, I wouldn't be rolling on the table to begin with. In practice, "GM Choice" just means reroll, which is annoying when I'm doing planning before the game, and ten times more annoying when it happens during play. If you honestly can't think of one more thing to put on the table then drop to a smaller die type or increase the chances of one of the other entries coming up. Don't tell me to do the very thing that I, just moments before, decided not to do.

(*I understand there are some RPGs without a Rule 0, where the GM can not just make things up without explicitly being told to. If you're writing for one of those games, please ignore this rant.)

You make a compelling point.

Fiery Diamond
2020-05-21, 06:26 PM
You know, I was honestly really hoping you'd express why your stance differed from mine. :smallbiggrin:

Hmmm… ignore GNS - I just use the words to help ground what I'm saying; here, they might be more distraction than communication aid.

So… imagine you're at a table where all rolls are in the open, and the players will call you a cheater and beat you up in the parking lot if you deviate from the published stats in any way. A bit extreme, perhaps, but might that gaming culture give you a different perspective on the GM usurping the published tables?

A bit less extreme - and coming from the opposite direction - but can you imagine a GM who was stuck in a rut, and would never even imagine adding their own cool ideas (or be able to work up the mental energy to even think about it) if the table didn't prompt them to do so?

I've seen both (if slightly less extreme).

Speaking for myself (a very "let the dice fall where they may" advocate), tables are for when the GM wants to be nondeterministic, but fair.

Sure, I realize that there are… less versimilitude-driven, more GM-driven gaming styles than "let the dice fall where they may". But you realize that there are more versimilitude-driven, less GM-driven styles than "let the GM pick whatever they want, all the time", and that those aren't BadWrongFun, right?

Or do you think that such playstyles are so inherently suboptimal as to be worth considering jettisoning? I know you've talked against many toxic paths in the past, so maybe this is just hitting me at a blind spot, but… I don't consider "GM chooses whenever they want, all the time" to inherently be a given in all possible good gaming styles - especially not when, say, running a published module.

Am I missing something obvious here?



One thing I like to do in my own "modules" is to make all random encounters "and roll again". That way, just because you've had an encounter, you don't know that you're magically safe from encounters for the next X hours.

Also, as player or GM, I personally love when the party happens upon two random encounters that have encountered each other. :smallbiggrin:


That… was a lot of really good replies! Kudos!

So… let's see if I've got this straight: "GM's choice" on a random table is born out of a particular gaming mindset; disliking the entry indicates either failure to understand that mindset, or understanding but rejecting the mindset under which the table (and, by extension, the system / module, if applicable) was written.

In one camp are those who believe that the GM should remain neutral, and never have / make a choice. They feel that "GM's choice" should not be on the table, because it undermines the whole neutrality of the GM.

In a second camp are those who feel that the GM should *always* have a choice, and the table exists only for when the GM doesn't care. They feel that "GM's choice" should not be on the table, because it undermines the whole point of offloading the choice to a table.

In a third camp are the Gygaxian Illusionists, who believe that the only reason the GM rolls dice is for the sound. They don't care what's on the table, although "GMs choice" probably sounds like a good cover for those times when they don't instantly know what they want.

Then there's the mixed camp, that believes GM neutrality should occasionally be tempered with conscious choice - not when the GM wants to, but at random intervals. They are the ones who made these tables (and, by extension, modules/systems).

There may be other camps.

(I hypothesize the existence of a camp that believes GM neutrality should occasionally be tempered with conscious choice when the GM so desires. They likely give the GM a certain budget of "beanies" or whatever to spend in overruling Arangee, and would almost certainly find "GM's choice" as a table entry to be distasteful, as it defeats (or at least runs contrary to) the entire purpose of their beanie system.)

Interestingly, unlike the other camps, the mixed camp(s) are rather divided. They can readily disagree on how often the GM should get a say, as well as whether / how often the *players* should actually be the ones overruling Arangee.

Clearly (given my original post), I belong to the mixed camp, at least insofar as things that @kyoryu would refer to as "structural" are concerned. I care about the… differences in feel between "random", "arbitrary", and "optimized", and generally prefer the lack of dissonance inherent in ostensibly random events feeling, well, random. I acknowledge that "GM's choice" has a place, and when it occurs at random intervals, I suppose, it does not detract from the feeling of randomness (even if, if peered at closely enough, perhaps it should?).

Does that… make sense? Reveal any gaping holes in my understanding of the topic?

Well... I can't speak for anyone but myself, but it seems your seccond post here is pretty spot on. I am so firmly in the second camp that I would be vehemently opposed to running a game for players who expected otherwise or playing in a game under a GM who felt otherwise. I find both the first and fourth camps to be antithetical to my conception of what makes tabletop RPGs fun. If I wanted a game where the GM just "followed the rules and did what the dice said" I'd play a video game. The GM is a player, not a system simulator. Put another way: the rules serve the game, not the other way around - if the rules are getting in the way in any way, they should be modified, ignored, or violated. Yes, one should understand the rules before breaking them - otherwise you might as well be playing freeform (which is also loads of fun, but not the same kind of thing). The rules are still beneath the people playing the game's fun.

As you can guess, I find "let the dice fall where they may" to be utterly awful and antithetical to a good game. I'm not saying people are wrong to play their own games that way, but any player who felt that "Dice are King" would be unwelcome at any game I ran.

Side note: I'm not sure what you mean by "optimized" in this context.

Quertus
2020-05-21, 11:42 PM
Several larger ideas, but I'll tackle this one small bite:


Side note: I'm not sure what you mean by "optimized" in this context.

Once upon a time, I had a GM who, halfway through the 1st session, I could consistently know how many and which PCs would still be conscious at the conclusion of the "climactic" battle with the BBEG, because I knew that that's what the GM thought would make for the best story.

"Optimized" means "chosen, because it is (considered) best (for a particular purpose)".

It is, without a doubt, my least favorite of "random", "arbitrary", and "optimized".

It is "GM's choice".

Leon
2020-05-22, 08:13 AM
It's bizarre how many designers don't seem to understand the purpose of the tables and tools they themselves include.

Whats more bizarre is the asinine complaints that gamers come up with when faced with something they dont like...

Theoboldi
2020-05-22, 09:40 AM
Whats more bizarre is the asinine complaints that gamers come up with when faced with something they dont like...

Um, not quite sure what you're saying here. Is that a retort to what I'm saying or are you agreeing? The way you phrased that is kinda confusing. :smallconfused:

JNAProductions
2020-05-23, 12:36 PM
Whats more bizarre is the asinine complaints that gamers come up with when faced with something they dont like...

If I pay money for an RPG book, I expect to be given content to use.

Saying "Figure it out" in that book is the designers being lazy, because here's the thing-I can already just make my own stuff up. If I'm buying a book, it's because I'm paying money for SOMEONE ELSE to figure it out.

I don't think anyone would say that the authors have to figure out 100% of everything-even in a setting book, for instance, leaving little mysteries for the GM to fill in is okay. But the more often it appears, the lazier the authors were, and the less value the book has.