| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 17:15:36
Whose responsibility is it to prevent miuse of equipment, magic or other world-setting elements? I don't mean manipulation of the mechanics system.
Can you blame the players for trying to use an item (or a spell or a special ability) in the game in ways, or with a frequency, that the DM didn't forsee and doesn't like?
I say it's the DM's responsibility to make sure any elements he or she introduces work well within the game. Sure, it's nice to have players that won't try this sort of thing, but in a sense, it's bad role-playing for them to ignore such non-standard but "legal" uses for things.
I played in a 1e game once in which the DM essentially gave my character very powerful psionics. He then later complained I was "abusing" them. I told him if he didn't want me "abusing" them, he shouldn't have given them to the character in the first place, as it was ridiculous for the character not to use his abilities to the utmost. If you had the power in real life to instantly teleport, would you not do it because it was "unfair"?
Needless to say, I don't game with that fellow any more. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Yasraena |
Posted - 23 Jun 2003 : 19:21:36
I meant the retraction to be that I DO think that playrs should contribute to the story, when before I said they shouldn't have to.
When the players just get on a roll and the GM doesn't have to do anyting but play an NPC or roll a couple of dice for reactions, etc, that is really the ideal situation, where the players and the GM share the task of enhancing and enlarging the story. Those are the times when some of the best gaming memories are made.
Control freaks are the epitomy of bad GM's. They're all about "You can't do that" or "That's not the way is supposed to go" when a player tries something that he didn't consider. I have played under only 2 of this type of GM, and I lasted about 2 hours in each of their games before I left. They just suck the fun right out of it. |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 22 Jun 2003 : 05:52:45
Yasraena:
I took the post you said you wanted to retract to mean that it's the GM's responsibility to keep the game going when the players aren't. Sometimes, all the GM has to do is sit back and roll dice and take the persona of an NPC now and again, because the players are on a roll, driving the game. That's when it's the most fun to GM. It's like you're just another player. Control-freak GMs don't play this style, and I've said to a couple, as I was quitting their games for good, "Don't you like to have fun?"
Other times, the GM has to work at keeping things lively. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 21 Jun 2003 : 14:46:53
Really? Must be Tarim's fault -- he's never had a formal education in magic. Might have backfired the summoning. I'll have to send Kevin over to check up on him . . . .  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 21 Jun 2003 : 13:00:39
Actually, it's funny you should mention this species Bookwyrm. I was watching a documentary the other day about the native birds of Australia, and it detailed that 'Sooty Owls' were now recorded populating several isolated regions around the Perth area.
Fascinating...
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 21 Jun 2003 : 03:24:51
Yes, quite right, Yasraena. In Mumadar's PbeM, my character was in a conversation with Artalis's and Kitira's. Mumadar only interferred twice -- once to tell us that the inn at Olostin's Hold was very full, so basically my character, when he and his familiar came in, had to sit next to the other two.
The second was inserted in the middle, telling us that the rest of the inn's patrons considered us all (a skinny former Uthgardt human, a female half-elf ranger, and a male half-elf wizard, plus the latter's tressym familiar) were very unusual. He also mentioned the usual bit about what the mood of the room was and what the topics being discussed were.
That was it. The rest was all us. Probably the only thing we did that Mumadar wasn't expecting was Kevin, my character, conviced Artalis's (Tarim, a wizard/sorcerer) that he should get a familiar. My character is very big on familiars, and was thinking it a bit odd of Tarim not to gain one as soon as possible. Tomorrow (if Mumadar ever lets tomorrow come  ) Tarim will gain a sooty owl for a familiar.
The way we're treating familiars is that, while the player chooses the type, the character doesn't; it's more of an open call. Tarim doesn't know what he's getting. However, Artalis has already picked out a name for the owl: Enedome, or Midnight. If you want to see a picture of "his" owl, click here. Sage, you should find it interesting -- in the Real World, it's native to your country, albeit the other side of it from Perth.
That was something that Mumadar hadn't considered, I'm sure, and causes the campaign to lag behind a day. It also introduces a new element to the party, a creature who has a very good chance of spotting any ambushes (so I'd assume). For a solely story-point aspect, we (Artalis and I, with Mumadar's implied agreement) changed the way a character gains a familiar.
The point is, any story like this, where you have (in this instance) four authors, each controling certain aspects and building off of each other, the whole course of events is very organic. Much like real life, you can't always know how things are going, and expect them to be as you would like them to be. |
| Yasraena |
Posted - 21 Jun 2003 : 01:57:25
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I know there's a style where the players just run through the DM's plots, but that's not my idea of 'protagonist'. I prefer the story to emerge dynamically from play with PC actions working with the DM to make it as exciting and interesting as possible. If either the players or DM are bad, obviously the whole thing tends not to work.
Yes, but it still goes back to the GM creating the initial storyline.
I have to retract my previous post ( ) and say that I agree with you that the players can (and should) contribute to the overall story with their characters actions. It's really an 'unwritten law of roleplaying' type of thing, because if you're playing your character right, there will be many opportunities to create new things within the story just by what they do from day to day. Without them to perhaps take the story in ways the GM hadn't planned on, the game would get very predictable very fast.
BUT, without solid backgrounds, stories and NPC's development to start with, we as players can't do much to create new ones. I at least need something to work from.
|
| eilinel |
Posted - 20 Jun 2003 : 11:35:15
i got ur point bran, and i agree.
of course, the DM has to do something against players that overuse some combinaisons but i think its pretty easy for him to do so. the only problem, actually, is not between DM & players but between players themselves. The Dm can always do something, but the power of a player mustn't be against the others, i mean not saying that cannot fight each other. I don't care, but one don't have to be to much more powerful than an other. Its what i think.
After that, being DM, i let players do whatever they could imagine. The only end is theit own imagination, in fact. if thay wanna ride dragons, why not?
being player, i use to be a lot of things that completly go aginst the scenario and my Dm doen't care, just because i can do that and actually it works pretty well, most of the time...
for example, i polymophed all the band in little dragons because dragons are the fastest creature. My DM readied all the trip thinking we would ride horses... but first we were flying and then we were faster than any other creature, so.
And its only one example, i have a lot, really.
I think players should gain something to be imaginativ. Not always of course, but if the DM let them do, they gain things by themselves.
But it also why i don't totally agree with u, Bran, its not always the fault of the Dm is something is going wrong. A DM should push the players to make actions for me. U can have fun in a world even if nobody is against u, is looking for ur head or has something to hide to. If players go near the actions, well, bad they are. The fun is everywhere, players should find it easily, no? And Players can as well as the DM make the story. As well, its the responsability of everyone.
But im talking for nothing, all of that is already written in every RPG guide book.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 19 Jun 2003 : 20:21:10
I know there's a style where the players just run through the DM's plots, but that's not my idea of 'protagonist'. I prefer the story to emerge dynamically from play with PC actions working with the DM to make it as exciting and interesting as possible. If either the players or DM are bad, obviously the whole thing tends not to work. |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 19 Jun 2003 : 15:43:42
Bookwyrm, let's just stop replying to each other's posts, eh?
Yasrena:
quote:
<snip> As a player, my goal is to have fun, not to enhance the story. The story should already be there. I'm just taking part in it.
That is an excellent one-sentence summation. If the DM's bored, it's his fault. If the players are bored, it's his fault. |
| Yasraena |
Posted - 19 Jun 2003 : 08:19:47
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Similarly, as a player my goals aren't to 'let [my] PC survive and come out victorious' but to make the story good.
I don't see how that even can be a goal of a player, Faraer, since making it good (or bad) is pretty much beyond our control and solely in the hands of the GM. HE's the one who creates the story, the conflicts, etc. A bad story is a bad story, no matter how bad the players want it to be good, or what they try to do to make it good.
The point being that the players can only work with what they've been given. The game (story) will only be as good as the GM running(telling)it, no matter how well the players play.
As a player, my goal is to have fun, not to enhance the story. The story should already be there. I'm just taking part in it.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 19 Jun 2003 : 06:37:51
quote:
Originally posted by branmakmuffin
Bookwyrm:
What's wrong with it? It's arbitrary and, if he or she does it too much, sends the message that the DM is ill-prepared. I don't expect perfection from a DM or my fellow players, as I certainly don't deliver it, but I do expect competence.
You completely misunderstood what I was talking about. Jeez. And you accuse me of being paranoid? 
Fortunately, Yasraena clarified it, albeit inadvertently, in the last two paragraphs of his last post to this thread. |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 21:29:52
Faraer:
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think mechanics systems make for good story. Obviously the story comes from the DM and the players.
I'm no more interested in powergaming than you are. I am saying that a mechanics system that has to rely on the good will of players to not powergame is, to that extent at least, badly designed. I'm also not implying that D&D 3e is the only mechanics system vulnerable to minmaxing. All RPG mechanics systems are vulnerable to minmaxing in one way or another. The 3e ranger just happens to be one of the more obvious exmaples of bad design in D&D that permits minmaxing.
If PCs and NPCs are not interchangeable, then you have an arbitrary world which adheres to no internal logic. That doesn't work in fiction and it doesn't make for good RPGs. This has nothing to do with giving NPCs or monsters as many feats or HPs as you deem necessary for the their power level relative to the PCs. PCs have hit points and feats, too. It would only be bad if you created a feat, let's call it Death Stare, and allowed normal human NPC clerics of Myrkul to have it but not PC clerics of Myrkul to have it. Now maybe they have to be 24th level, have a chaisma of 18 and slay a dracolich in single combat. That's not a problem. Theoretically, a human PC can become level 24, have a charisma of 18 and, theoretically, slay a dracolich single-handedly. This doesn't mean human PCs should be allowed to have strengths of 80 just because big monsters do. It is logically consistent, within the framework of the rules and the setting, that a huge giant would have a strength of 80 and a 6' tall human has 18. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 20:36:31
It looks like branmakmuffin and I use rulesets at a different level. D&D doesn't provide rules that make for a good story, just a combat and skill resolution system, so I don't refer to the rules except incidentally when something needs resolving. They don't define anything for me. 3E people will tell you it's 'bad design' for a ruleset to rely more on the participants and less on foolproofed mechanics, but it's just a different approach with pros and cons on both sides. Without the good will of players, mechanics that frustrate (e.g.) powergaming impulses are just bandaging the symptoms and hiding conflicts under the surface.
Similarly, as a player my goals aren't to 'let [my] PC survive and come out victorious' but to make the story good.
The 3E insistence on having PCs and NPCs use the same rules doesn't work for me because it supposes they are fundamentally interchangeable except some happen to be player-run and some by DMs, whereas in fact protagonist and antagonists are as different within the structure of story as scenery and plot -- they only *appear* similar. If I'm running the Realms with D&D, I'll give my monsters as many feats or hit points as I want -- I don't think auditing stat blocks is a good use of my time.
Looks like a matter of G/N/S!
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/ |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 19:26:56
And if some house rule or new piece of equipment turns out to be too powerful, then it is fine to say to the players "Look, this isn't working out the way I had hoped. Can we eliminate it or change it some way?" In this case, the DM is getting the players' input, so they won't feel shanghaied by the arbitrary change.
If a GM does this too much, it gets annoying of course. |
| Yasraena |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 19:20:01
I completely agree with Bran on this one, as a player and a GM.
I think the main crux of the problem here is that the GM is just not prepared enough. If they include a skill/feat/class/whatever in their game, it's their job to analyze it to the point of thinking about how it'll be used/abused. If they don't do that, they're not doing their job as a GM.
Given, there will be situations that will come up that the GM hasn't thought of (it's happened to me on numerous occasions). The true skill of the GM comes out in such circumstances when they're forced to improvise or make a decision on the spur of the moment, and making these ruling make sense in the game world. "Just because" or "Only NPC's can do it" is a cop-out and shows the GM doesn't have a real answer.
As far as a PC using the 'same old boring things', there is no such thing as far as I'm concerned. If a player finds a great combination of spells or tactics that work for his PC, it's up to the GM to find a way to either make those combinations not so successful anymore, or to make the player see that they're not the end all catch all to every situation. The player is just doing what he feels (and knows from experience) will let their PC survive and come out victorious.
When I play Yasraena, I have a few spells and tactics that I use in (almost) every combat situation. The reason.... BECAUSE THEY WORK. If my GM gets frustrated because I keep using them, then HE must come up with a way to realistically and logically make me see that they are not the best things to do. |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 19:15:05
Faraer:
quote:
There's a thin line between a *character* having believable favourite spells and the player just using the same old boring things out of habit. It's not a thing for the DM to prohibit, just have a word behind the scenes.
If a player wants to cast Flare at every enemy's eyes in every encounter, what's the big deal? I don't consider that "misuse of the world setting". Maybe it's boring, but people are boring in RL, why can't PCs be boring even if it's by virture of the way the players control them? I wouldn't classify that as bad role-playing.
quote:
I think it's too much effort, either for game designers or a DM, to absolutely fool-proof the rules so that even a lousy campaign won't fall totally out of line. A complex system like D&D is almost impossible to 'balance' to everyone's liking.
I don't expect perfection from a mechanics system any more than I expect it from players/DMs. Everyone has house rules.
quote:
I wouldn't play in or DM a campaign with players likely to abuse the frontloaded ranger class any more than I'd play with people who didn't turn up on time.
You shouldn't have to rely on the "good will" of players to not abuse flawed mechanics. That's bad design. As well, you shouldn't have to rely on the "good will" of players to do or use something that the mechanics system makes undesireable. 1e and 2e were very flawed in this respect.
quote:
It's not so much that there fundamentally has to be a logical reason why the PCs can't fly as that socially and practically the players are *likely* to be upset if they're not given one.
I disagree. If Fred the Uthgardt can't ever fly on a dragon, and other PCs and NPCs can, there has to be a logical reason why (he's too heavy, too ugly, has yellow teeth, etc.) Like I said, players don't have to be given the reason if it's not common knowledge. If they bitch about not knowing something relatively obscure, they're not very good players.
quote:
I think most of the instances of 'NPCs only' are entirely sensible and I dislike the current trend of making stupid genre- and game-destroying options available to players unless the DM actively stops them. But that's a case-by-case thing.
"NPCs only" is arbitrary and illogical and if you like it, we can only agree to disagree. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 18:54:44
There's a thin line between a *character* having believable favourite spells and the player just using the same old boring things out of habit. It's not a thing for the DM to prohibit, just have a word behind the scenes.
I think it's too much effort, either for game designers or a DM, to absolutely fool-proof the rules so that even a lousy campaign won't fall totally out of line. A complex system like D&D is almost impossible to 'balance' to everyone's liking. I wouldn't play in or DM a campaign with players likely to abuse the frontloaded ranger class any more than I'd play with people who didn't turn up on time.
It's not so much that there fundamentally has to be a logical reason why the PCs can't fly as that socially and practically the players are *likely* to be upset if they're not given one.
I think most of the instances of 'NPCs only' are entirely sensible and I dislike the current trend of making stupid genre- and game-destroying options available to players unless the DM actively stops them. But that's a case-by-case thing. |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 18:25:17
eilinel:
I mean a DM not liking the way a player is using a skill, spell, ability or piece of equipment, that the DM him- or herself put in the game. The ranger example is exactly what I'm talking about. WotC obviously didn't play test it very well, or they thought minmaxing was a good idea.
The DM can either deal with it arbitrarily ("You can't take just 1 level of ranger") or he or she can say that only characters with certain backgrounds can have any ranger levels ("You can only take any levels of ranger if you're from a rural or wilderness area"). The first way eliminates the problem entirely, but it's arbitrary and doesn't make sense from a fictional point of view. The second only limits the number of characters who can abuse the rule, but it has the advantage of being more-or-less consistent with the fictional elements of the campaign, and is much less arbitrary.
Like a story, a good RPG campaign has to be logically consistent within its own confines. If some people can ride dragons and some can't, it's bad if the DM's reason is "Just because" or "Only NPCs can ride dragons". There's got to be a reason withing the game setting. I'm not saying the players have to automatically know the reason (maybe just finding out how to become a dragon-rider is a major quest, let alone how difficult it is to actually become a dragon-rider once they learn the method), just that it has to exist, and it has to be logical.
One of the worst violations of this rule, of which TSR/WotC has been guilty countless times, is indeed the old "Only NPCs can do this" ploy. |
| eilinel |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 18:07:28
what so u mean?
that its bad roleplaying to not use whole potential of stuffs bad done?
i think that players have also a big role to play here and see what is overpowered and underpowered. If every fighter in ur group want to take one level of a ranger because they get ambidextry, two weapon fighting, track and favored ennemy for free without explaining in their background or something what they do that, what do u do?
u let them take all the stuffs they can take to make "big boss" players?
u probably know that every RPG player that don't play DnD reconize in DnD that kind of things. And its again what i fight in player and master.
i don't want to see every fighter also ranger, every bard also rogue for the skills, nobody taking a specific prestige class just because it seems to be weak and so on, even if u hide it under "explanations".
i can't say that im not atracted by that, im the first who see that kind of things in DnD and tell it to my players, so.
u see.
just a thought. |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 17:47:21
Bookwyrm:
What's wrong with it? It's arbitrary and, if he or she does it too much, sends the message that the DM is ill-prepared. I don't expect perfection from a DM or my fellow players, as I certainly don't deliver it, but I do expect competence. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 10:00:28
When situations such as this arise, as DM I rely heavily on a timed and tested piece of Vulcan philosophy - Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 07:22:05
And what's wrong with that? Except the DM wouldn't say it so bluntly -- (s)he'd just put something in front of that character that isn't solved like that. |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 21:18:05
Faraer:
I think everyone's in favor of good communication between DMs and players. I'm talking about something unforseen, which by definition cannot be discussed ahead of time.
My assertion is that it's the DM's job to either make sure the PCs don't "abuse" the world setting, or to make sure he can go with the flow if they do.
Just exactly how would you handle someone using spell combinations that had become "boring schtick"? Would you simply say, "You've been doing that too much lately. It doesn't work anymore"? |
| Faraer |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 20:27:37
The thing is to agree in advance what your character can do. If there's a gap between the letter of the rules and what they're supposed to be representing, it's the DM's responsibility to establish that and yours to cooperate with the intent. What you would do in real life, or the most efficient way for the character to act from the point of view of particular objectives, is rarely the most interesting thing for the story. By the time you get to placing blame it may be too late: communicate first.
As far as novel uses and combinations of spells: they're fine as long as they don't become a boring repeated schtick and as long as they're not an abuse of insufficiently lawyerlike phrasing of the spell. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 20:24:34
What's to complain about? Part of the fun of this is figuring out ways to do new things. And a real role-play isn't a CRPG. There isn't always the One True Way to move, act, speak, etc. The DM has the inherent responsibility to provide numerous ways for the campaign to move, and to anticipate, as best as possible, the ways the players will act.
There's a d20 file I have, on how to create a feat. In it it says that one of the things you have to watch out for is the weirdness factor, or ways that the feat can be used besides the one you had in mind. That, I think, applies to gaming in general. |
|
|
