New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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.)
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I've tallied up all the points for this thread, and consulted with the debate judges, and the verdict is clear: JoeJ wins the thread.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Your rant is good and has my support.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    (*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.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Preach! white text
    Hill Giant Games
    I make indie gaming books for you!
    Spoiler
    Show

    STaRS: A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system.
    Grod's Guide to Greatness, 2e: A big book of player options for 5e.
    Grod's Grimoire of the Grotesque: An even bigger book of variant and expanded rules for 5e.
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Theoboldi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Hear hear!

    It's bizarre how many designers don't seem to understand the purpose of the tables and tools they themselves include.
    Always look for white text. Always.
    That's how you do it! Have a cookie!
    Quote Originally Posted by ezekielraiden View Post
    You don't win people over by beating them with facts until they surrender; at best all you've got is a conversion under duress, and at worst you've actively made an enemy of your position.

    You don't convince by proving someone wrong. You convince by showing them a better way to be right. The difference may seem subtle or semantic, but I assure you it matters a lot.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2020-05-19 at 12:43 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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.
    Last edited by Grod_The_Giant; 2020-05-19 at 12:27 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    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.

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by FaerieGodfather View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2020-05-19 at 02:18 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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).

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Composer99's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    [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.
    Last edited by Composer99; 2020-05-19 at 03:30 PM.
    ~ Composer99

    D&D 5e Campaign:
    Adventures in Eaphandra

    D&D 5e Homebrew:
    This can be found in my extended homebrew signature!

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Quote Originally Posted by Composer99 View Post
    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.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I've tallied up all the points for this thread, and consulted with the debate judges, and the verdict is clear: JoeJ wins the thread.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Aotrs Commander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Derby, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Quote Originally Posted by prabe View Post
    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.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GrayDeath's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In the Heart of Europe
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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.
    A neutron walks into a bar and says, “How much for a beer?” The bartender says, “For you? No charge.”

    01010100011011110010000001100010011001010010000001 10111101110010001000000110111001101111011101000010 00000111010001101111001000000110001001100101001011 100010111000101110

    Later: An atom walks into a bar an asks the bartender “Have you seen an electron? I left it in here last night.” The bartender says, “Are you sure?” The atom says, “I’m positive.”

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.)
    Hill Giant Games
    I make indie gaming books for you!
    Spoiler
    Show

    STaRS: A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system.
    Grod's Guide to Greatness, 2e: A big book of player options for 5e.
    Grod's Grimoire of the Grotesque: An even bigger book of variant and expanded rules for 5e.
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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?"

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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".
    Last edited by kyoryu; 2020-05-20 at 12:31 PM.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    St. Paul, MN

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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?

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Titan in the Playground
     
    CarpeGuitarrem's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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.
    Ludicrus Gaming: on games and story
    Quote Originally Posted by Saph
    Unless everyone's been lying to me and the next bunch of episodes are The Great Divide II, The Great Divide III, Return to the Great Divide, and Bride of the Great Divide, in which case I hate you all and I'm never touching Avatar again.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Quote Originally Posted by CarpeGuitarrem View Post
    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).

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrrell View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I've tallied up all the points for this thread, and consulted with the debate judges, and the verdict is clear: JoeJ wins the thread.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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?
    Last edited by Quertus; 2020-05-20 at 07:42 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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?

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I've tallied up all the points for this thread, and consulted with the debate judges, and the verdict is clear: JoeJ wins the thread.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Quote Originally Posted by FaerieGodfather View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    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.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    LudicSavant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    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.
    Last edited by LudicSavant; 2020-05-21 at 05:20 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
    If statistics are the concern for game balance I can't think of a more worthwhile person for you to discuss it with, LudicSavant has provided this forum some of the single most useful tools in probability calculations and is a consistent source of sanity checking for this sort of thing.
    An Eclectic Collection of Fun and Effective Builds | Comprehensive DPR Calculator | Monster Resistance Data

    Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Fiery Diamond's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Imagination
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    You know, I was honestly really hoping you'd express why your stance differed from mine.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Fiery Diamond; 2020-05-21 at 06:28 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Rant for Game/Content Creators

    Several larger ideas, but I'll tackle this one small bite:

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiery Diamond View Post
    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".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •