[3.5] Play Smart, Get Punished?

[The Rose Dragon]

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather not play at all than playing with a bunch of competitive jerk players

It's like having the choice of drinking a bar's house wine or no wine at all. I'd rather be thirsty.

I often hear people say "no gaming is preferably to bad gaming". I have to ask how often they get to play or find new players, because I have to take what I can get.

[Gaius Marius]

I often hear people say "no gaming is preferably to bad gaming". I have to ask how often they get to play or find new players, because I have to take what I can get.

The game I am playing at the moment is the only game I've had in 2 months.

Before, I gamed for about 3 months, and I had been on a 1y 1/2 drough...

[Kajhera]

Winning happens to be important to me as a player; I prefer my encounters to end in 'won', 'chose to depart', or 'forced to flee'. Losing ... too often ... makes me feel I've done something badly, that I am not competent enough to deal with appropriate adventures, that I am, in some way, a failure.

Whether this advances the story or not, too much of it sours the game like an overdose of lemon juice. A little bit I suppose gives it a nice citrusy tang and makes the stakes more real. There's a reason the DMG only has 5% of encounters as 'overwhelming, forced to flee (or perform exceptionally)'.

I'm not trying to compete with the other players, or the GM, at all. I want to tell a story about being a hero (and not always a tragic hero). I don't want to suffer 'Worf Syndrome'. Winning is not a more questionable goal for my character than any other. Of course it should take effort and sacrifice. But it is not wrong to want to win.

Winning in an overall context may be 'surviving the campaign', 'saving the world', 'getting married and having kids', or 'transcending into an immortal existence'. I can save the world, die, and still have won. Winning is meeting my goals. It's not unfair to want that.

As a GM - well - the story's about my players. It's not my story. I'm aiding them in becoming the legends bards tell about. I'm crafting a world for them to love and hate, preserve, destroy, protect, change, abandon, reclaim. The game is not mine. The game is theirs.

In that context, punishing their creativity and intelligence would be entirely counterproductive. If they move beyond the material I have prepared, I can simply inform them of this and end the session, or improvise. If they are overcoming challenges much more skillfully than I expected, it's time to step up my game - reexamining my tactics and increasing the variety of encounters tends to aid in keeping it an interesting challenge for them.

[Gaius Marius]

Thing is, the players should be aware that things CAN fail.

Just because you are the protagonist doesn't mean the story will end up okay. The game must go on, obviously, but if you can't fail, what's the point of win?

[Tyndmyr]

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather not play at all than playing with a bunch of competitive jerk players

It's like having the choice of drinking a bar's house wine or no wine at all. I'd rather be thirsty.

Sometimes house wine is pretty decent. Sometimes you can have a pretty decent game with less than perfect players. Sure, there's a limit...but a bit of competitiveness and desire to win is hardly the worst of player traits.

Personally, I don't expect to win every time...and while I initially feel disappointment when I lose, it makes for a better game in the long run than if I *always* win. Challenge is important. But if I ended up losing all the time, I suspect the game would pretty much cease to be fun.

Bend, DMing isn't magical...anyone can learn how to do it, if they want to. And, if you really, really want to play, and your GM is terrible enough, it can make you want to. I've known many a person who started GMing just because there was a lack of good GMs around.

[Totally Guy]

But if it's just as "fun" to win or lose, what's the point in trying?

[Kajhera]

Thing is, the players should be aware that things CAN fail.

Just because you are the protagonist doesn't mean the story will end up okay. The game must go on, obviously, but if you can't fail, what's the point of win?

Of course.

But if you play skillfully, creatively, rationally, with good storytelling, and the dice are on your side...then you should certainly be able to win.

But if it's just as "fun" to win or lose, what's the point in trying?

If you're looking for a silly game or horror game, your fun values may vary. Like it may be more amusing to slip on a banana peel than to notice and avoid it, and if you wanted to be scared out of your pants then heroically and decisively defeating every encounter may be somewhat less than satisfying.

It really depends on what your players want out of the game. The job of the GM is, really, to give the players what they want. Figure out their favored amounts of victory, horror, and such.

[Bobikus]

the zombie that wasn't a zombie

This describes a few characters in my AFMBE campaign I'm running actually :P. There's an aspect that lets Zombies look indistinguishable from a living human, and quite a few zombies have that and/or aspects to give them human level intelligence.

[Gaius Marius]

But if it's just as "fun" to win or lose, what's the point in trying?

Because the fun comes from trying in itself.

The fun of a RPG game is to come up with convoluted plans and try to execute them. It's trying to keep it afloat when everything else is collapsing.

It's coming with the right thing to say when you only had 2 seconds to think about it, and everybody smiling 'cause you had your moment of genius.

I look at RPG like I look at sport: I want my game to be entertaining. Sure, I want the Habs to win the games I watch, but what is important is an entertaining game. Maybe an entertaining game where we are on the defensive all the time, or an entertaining game where we dominate the adversary.

As long as I am amused by what I see, I'll like hockey. In the same vein, even if the PC party failed to steal the King's Crown, they must have had fun coming with the plan and trying to pull it off. They just smile, and tell: "Next time, we'll succeed".

If the outcome is the only thing that is important, then I don't think RPG games are exactly the game you want. The fun is to walk the walk, not getting where you want.

[Kajhera]

Because the fun comes from trying in itself.

The fun of a RPG game is to come up with convoluted plans and try to execute them. It's trying to keep it afloat when everything else is collapsing.

It's coming with the right thing to say when you only had 2 seconds to think about it, and everybody smiling 'cause you had your moment of genius.

I look at RPG like I look at sport: I want my game to be entertaining. Sure, I want the Habs to win the games I watch, but what is important is an entertaining game. Maybe an entertaining game where we are on the defensive all the time, or an entertaining game where we dominate the adversary.

As long as I am amused by what I see, I'll like hockey. In the same vein, even if the PC party failed to steal the King's Crown, they must have had fun coming with the plan and trying to pull it off. They just smile, and tell: "Next time, we'll succeed".

If the outcome is the only thing that is important, then I don't think RPG games are exactly the game you want. The fun is to walk the walk, not getting where you want.

I sincerely agree the outcome should not be the only thing that is important. (Like sports.)

It is, however, likely important to the players. (Like sports.)

[Gaius Marius]

I sincerely agree the outcome should not be the only thing that is important. (Like sports.)

It is, however, likely important to the players. (Like sports.)

They have to STRIVE toward a win.

But they must be happy with the performance they gave.

AND the GM should reward them according to the performance they gave, not wether or not they achieved their objectives. (that should represent less than 20% of the game's XP)

[Totally Guy]

Because the fun comes from trying in itself.

Trying to do what?

[Gaius Marius]

Trying to do what?

To win, obviously.

But if they try magnificiently, yet they fail, and they end up not liking the game solely based on the fact that they failed, maybe they should recheck their priority.

Because what's important is "they tried magnificiently". That's the story you want to tell to your friends later. The fact that you came out with or without the objective is secondary

About a healthy third of my best gaming memories came from superb failed attempts.

[Totally Guy]

That's cool.

It just seemed like you were condemning trying to win.

[Gaius Marius]

That's cool.

It just seemed like you were condemning trying to win.

Trying to win is the most important part of the game.

Winning is kinda secondary.

I don't know if I make sense. On the same vein, if you meet Buddah on the road, kill him for 5,000 xp.

[Kajhera]

... Gaius Marius, I think we agree more than disagree, in sum. Perhaps not on the XP thing, but I don't have much of a position on what experience should be given for - I estimate a CR onto everything my players accomplish and then just give them that.

[Ravens_cry]

Actually... he may have been playing that one straight by the rules of the DMG..

There's this little clause that says "If the PC's make it more difficult on themselves than it has to be, they don't get extra xp for being dumber."

Having clearly given an escape route, then not going through with it out of bloodthirsty tendencies, it not going to net you any extra xp.

But as the last guy said, his biggest mistake was to give them a hard and fast number of zombies. Hell, at level 5, I had a cleric who could Destroy about a third that many. 3-5 turns later, lots of ash.

On the other hand, been told "You're not supposed to fight this" is out of character knowledge. To the characters, the problem was survival, they could either fight or flee. Frankly, they solved the problem better then if they fled, because then they might have to face them later. The characters were not dumb, they just didn't do what the DM intended, yet still solved the problem, their survival. Full XP I say.

[obliged_salmon]

What are we talking about? Oh right, player and DM regard for player ingenuity. And winning.

Far as I can tell, people have two basic motives for playing RPG's (aside from socialization). To play a game and to create. Winning is understandably more important to the former, and many games (like DnD) encourage such goals in the framework of their systems.

If you fail in these systems, often times the condition of failure is your character's death. Or else the action stops. For instance, fail a diplomacy check? The guard won't let you pass. Fail a climb check? You can't get over the wall to the next place. Fail a pick locks? Can't get through the door to the next location. In other words, failing sucks in these games, RAW.

As GM's, though, we can make failure more interesting, use it as opportunity to introduce complications and spur the characters onward to future greatness.

Fail a diplomacy check? The guard lets you pass for a sizeable donation to the city guard Christmas party. Fail a climb check? You make such a ruckus that a monster/guard comes to investigate. Fail a pick locks? You enter the room only to find a rival guild thief has beaten you to the goods and alerted the guards on his way out!

In other words, it's the GM's responsibility to make failing be awesome, and then everyone will want to do it.

[The Big Dice]

I often hear people say "no gaming is preferably to bad gaming". I have to ask how often they get to play or find new players, because I have to take what I can get.

Amen to that.

I'm seeing a lot of talk about winning and losing. But I'm not seeing a definition of what either of those words mean in the context of an RPG.

Do you win by defeating all obstacles put before you, crushing your enemies and hearing the lamentation of the women? Or do you win by taking part? Since both of these definitions are once I've seen used in RPGs.

In fact, 4th ed L5R goes as far as to say that if you're in a competitive and adversarial game, you're doing it wrong.

Which I think is ridiculous. [url=http://angrydm.com/2010/07/winning-dd/]Angry DM[/quote] has some interesting ideas on winning and losing in RPGs. He applies them to 4th ed D&D, but I think the concepts he's using are universal.

[Pisha]

Basically, there's two kinds of losing. One is where the GM intends/expects/wants you to lose, because it advances the plot or helps tell a cool story. Honestly, I'm pretty ok with that, as long as the GM is up-front about it. I've been on the receiving end of a game that begins with "City guards recognize your thief from her wanted posters and take you by surprise. You try to escape, but they get in a few lucky hits and you're knocked unconscious. You wake up in a jail cell. Go." Do I believe for a second that some city guards could take out my character? Heck no. But the "break out of jail" plot is always a fun one to run through, so I take a block and tackle and suspend that disbelief.

The other kind is where you lose because you actually messed up. Maybe you failed to plan, maybe you made poor choices, maybe the dice just had it out for you. I've also been on the receiving end of "If you roll anything other than a nat 20 on this Will save, your head asplode." And, y'know... it's fair. After 23 levels and more money than I can count, if I haven't done anything about my abysmal Will save, that's my own lookout. This kind of losing is less fun, but depending on how it's handled it can be ok. Asploding heads are fun to hear described, and the other character's reactions are fun to watch. If it happens too often, it can get irritating, but usually it's just a good gauge to see what you need to improve on.

The problems come in the grey area between the two. If the player feels that they're fighting a battle they literally can't win, no matter what they do, it feels like a waste of time - like the GM is just jerking them around to show off his own superiority. Similarly, if you feel your character died (or otherwise failed) because the GM dismissed your clever idea out of hand, it stings, and feels unfair. I suspect that most (not all, but most) of the people who "don't have fun unless they're winning" may be less concerned about losing than about losing in ways they don't feel were justified.

[Tanuki Tales]

Bend, DMing isn't magical...anyone can learn how to do it, if they want to. And, if you really, really want to play, and your GM is terrible enough, it can make you want to. I've known many a person who started GMing just because there was a lack of good GMs around.

You're right, it's a Divine effect that is classified as neither Su, Ex or Sp.

And as I said, players need to be ready to step up to the plate or the game can just easily be "Players are replaceable and a dime a dozen and the DM isn't."

Foot note: Though I think the whole "The DM can just be kicked and someone else can take their place if we feel like it" mentality is more likely to create intragame conflict and a DM vs. Party situation than the DM creating one, but that's just my opinion and the topic of another thread.

[BRC]

As I see it, there are two type of "Intelligent" solutions, I will call them Cheap and Genius.

A Cheap solution is one that, as the DM, I hate. That is one where the PC's simply bypass the challenge. The PC's never actually engage the challenge, they just work around it somehow, perhaps by exploiting a hole the DM left in their logic. This is stuff like, rather than fighting the orc, using Shape Stone to dig a deep pit underneath them.
My response to a Cheap solution is to let a given trick work exactly Once, and inform the PC's of this. Or to change the adventure so they run into the Challenge anyway.

The type of solution I like to encourage is what I call a "Genius" solution, one which does not negate the challenge, merely gives the PC's an advantage, for example, using ghost sounds to lure the enemy into position for an ambush.
The only problem with this type of solution is that it can make a difficult encounter trivial. The proper response, in my opinion anyway, is to ramp up the difficulty of encounters, while leaving room for creative solutions on the part of the PC's.

[Tyndmyr]

What, using stone shape to end encounters is brilliant! Using spells to kill your enemies IS engaging the encounter.

Player: *I cast Stone Shape to create a hole into the dragon's horde*
GM: The dragon pokes it's head out through the hole, and looks at you. He doesn't look happy. He's also very, very big. What do you do?
Player: *I cast Stone Shape*

[Gaius Marius]

What, using stone shape to end encounters is brilliant! Using spells to kill your enemies IS engaging the encounter.

Player: *I cast Stone Shape to create a hole into the dragon's horde*
GM: The dragon pokes it's head out through the hole, and looks at you. He doesn't look happy. He's also very, very big. What do you do?
Player: *I cast Stone Shape*

hahaha. Stuck dragon :-)

Would probably have the strenght to get itself out, but still impressive idea, and stupid action on the dragon's part. Although he can still breath, no?

[The Big Dice]

hahaha. Stuck dragon :-)

Would probably have the strenght to get itself out, but still impressive idea, and stupid action on the dragon's part. Although he can still breath, no?

There used to be a concept that got mentioned in gaming magazines in the 80s. Particularly in articles on how to be a better GM. The idea was, "If it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander."

What that means is, if a player opens the door to an exploit, strategy or trick that is excessively successful and/or powerful, then that player has no grounds to complain if the same thing is used against him.

I'm sure that not everyone agrees with this idea, but it is the very definition of sporting behaviour.

[Gaius Marius]

There used to be a concept that got mentioned in gaming magazines in the 80s. Particularly in articles on how to be a better GM. The idea was, "If it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander."

What that means is, if a player opens the door to an exploit, strategy or trick that is excessively successful and/or powerful, then that player has no grounds to complain if the same thing is used against him.

I'm sure that not everyone agrees with this idea, but it is the very definition of sporting behaviour.

the MAD argument. I think I mentionned it in an earlier thread. I don't mind my players coming up with crazy intelligent stuff, but I'd rather they don't use the same tricks all the time, or I'll use it on them.

[Tyndmyr]

Coming up with a creative solution to a problem is something I applaud.

Trying to solve *every* problem with the same trick is something I dislike. Yup, the first time you beat the fight by dropping objects from ridiculous heights is probably hilarious. It's reasonable to use this whenever appropriate.

But I don't really want to see the game become nothing but a bunch of guys dropping bombs. And I'll certainly pick encounters diverse enough that it won't be.

[navar100]

Some DMs have an ego trip or as I like to call them, Il Duce. Unlike other types of games, roleplaying games put someone "in charge". The game establishes one person to be the Boss Over Everything. Il Duces forget it's just a game, and they aren't the players' Overlord Master. They are insulted by a player outsmarting them with a clever idea and "winning". Such a player must be flogged to remind everyone who's the boss.

[Jarawara]

I suspect that most of the problems with GMs not being prepared for player tactics stem from GMs who don't know how the relevant game system works, or haven't carefully thought through the implications of players' powers. I can tell you from personal experience that building a game session around the player characters being trapped in the Lower Planes with yugoloth patrols chasing them is a waste of time if the PCs are 11th level and have access to plane shift. Being upset that the PCs managed to find a safe spot and then planeshift out would be stupid, because I failed there by not bothering to consider the PCs' capabilities when coming up with a "challenge" for them to overcome.

I agree that the DM needs to know what the players are capable of doing, but I also think there has to be an agreement between all participants of what the game will be about. The DM should tell the players what is expected of them, and the players should tell the DM if they really want to do that or not.

I got wordy with this next part, so I'm experimenting with the whole "spoiler" thingie. Let's see if it works... Hey, it did!

Spoiler

Show

I have been known to "railroad" the players, but it's been a willing, fully defined railroad. I offered to run an old-style tournament adventure on them. In the strictest definitions of the adventure, they are given a task and must attempt to perform it in a limited play-time, regardless of the costs (and lives) they lose. There is no option to take on the task in their own fashion -- they literally are given their characters and placed at the back of the fortress with a secret entrance in front of them. They can't go around, they can't go explore the town, they can't try to bluff their way in... they have a door in front of them, they must go in, or else they don't play.

Heck, it also has pre-made characters, with pre-selected spell lists. No crafting their own characters to the task, they have what they have, no options and no arguing!

Of course that is blatant railroading, of the worst kind for sure, enough to incite spontanous nerdrage in even the most level-headed of players...

But when I first offered to run the game, I told the players "This is a set adventure, no really option but to go forward, no exploring the side paths, very railroady set-up, it's just a straightforward test of your player skill, not something to roleplay or to take seriously. Are you interested?" They said yes. Had they said no, we wouldn't have done it. Had they asked it to be modified... I doubt we would have done it (not worth the effort, IMO). If they offered alternatives, sure thing, let's try that instead. But if they say yes, it's presumed that they then will play the adventure. We set it up to play through it, not to undo it with a unexpected use of a spell.

Anyway, the point of that spoiler-ed section is that it's the responsibility of the DM *and* the players to coordinate their efforts towards making the game work. If the GM just dumps the players into the lower planes and tells them "Find a way out", then yes, the GM screwed up for not taking 'Plane Shift' into account. But if the GM tells the players "I have a campaign idea of the party running around in the lower planes, are you interested?", and the players say yes, then I expect them not to use 'Plane Shift'... or at the very least, I expect them to use it again to return, once they got whatever they were running off to get. ("I cast Plane Shift To Walmart, buy all the holy water they have in stock, and then I Plane Shift back." )

If the players simply use the easy-button to avoid the whole point of the campaign... they shouldn't have been playing in the first place, and they should have told the GM that.

I had a friend who was going to be running her first game. I jumped at the chance to play in her game, because I wanted to encourage her to DM. Another DM, who shall ever remain nameless (Vincent!), also wanted to play.

My friend describes the set-up of the campaign, and how we were all thrown into an underground world that the above-ground Emperor used as a prison-world. (Anyone who's ever played Avernum will recognize this set-up.) The point of the campaign would be to learn to adapt and survive in this underground world, and maybe one day find a way back up to the surface, to freedom.

I look at the set-up, shrugg, and say ok. I want to play, I want her to learn to DM, and so I'm willing to go along with that concept and see where she was intending to take it.

Vincent, however, responds with, and I quote: "I wait 20 years until I learn the Teleport spell, and then I leave."

Gah.... what the 'ell did he even come for? If he's not there to play, if he's not going to even accept the basic premise of the game... I mean, he actually *asked* to be invited. What the 'ell was he even there for??


The GM has to consider what the players are capable of doing. But the players have to consider what the GM is *trying* to do. And if they want to play, sometimes it's best to pass at what you *can* do, and simply go with the the GM had intended for you to do. Teleporting, when available, can be good for hopping around the campaign area. But if you use Teleport to leave the campaign... that's the same as simply getting up and walking out of the house. Which is what Vincent should have done, if he didn't want to play.

And using Teleport as a threat to undo a campaign, when it would be years before you learn it... is still so mindbogglingly dumb as.... ok, I'm done ranting about that. For now.

[Human Paragon 3]

Somewhat relevant is this thread from my DMing series. There's also some related bits in "week 1" of the series (see the TOC thread).