The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: TheMeanestGuest

Quote from: LordVreegAs above, I was brought into this whole thing playing games where you lost characters regularly.  SO for me and what I was brought up in, I have seen that the risk is often tied to the reward.  Success means little when success is all but ensured.
Now, different people enjoy different things, and even the same person likes a break sometimes.  But I once had a very safe RPG game described to be about as much fun as playing monopoly and having the money and property re distrubuted every time around the board so no one could lose. 
But there are a lot of people who hate to lose, and they would rather deal with capping the feeling of success because the chance of losing is no fun at all.

There's a couple things you've said here that bother me, but I think it mostly boils down to equating character death with losing. Maybe more specifically the apparent assumption that a player who is upset by the death of their character is a sore loser, or that anyone who creates or plays in a game that isn't all about the hard reality of numbers is a communistic carebear. I don't particularly see the point of playing an RPG as having a successful character, but rather about the construction of an interesting story. My character could consistently suffer from undesirable outcomes, but that doesn't automatically make the story that is being built a bad story. I'm not saying characters shouldn't die. Character death is very important, and can be a powerful narrative element, but I don't think that it should just be a functionally random occurrence. The choices that a character has made and the tensions that they have created through their actions should feature, in my opinion, in any situation that has significant lethal potential.

I generally become very invested in my characters and enjoy developing them outside the bounds of the game itself, and thusly, if a character of mine were to die because a random no-name mook shot them in the eyeball I would not be upset because I 'lost', but because the work I put into that character wasn't at all valued or considered by the GM. I'm not saying that GMs should pander to their players, far from it, being given what you want all the time with little effort would be just as boring as having your character choke to death on their breakfast because they failed their chew roll. It's difficult to convey my exact meaning here, but I think I at least sort of intimated it.     

I've played with you enough to get some handle on your meaning. 
And frankly, your return to SIG has been awesome.

I agree...one of the issues is equating character death as losing.  There is a big difference between a sense of justified loss, based on the time and enjoyment of the game, and the petulance of 'losing' the game.  This difference may be partially maturity, but there are other factors as well.
And I mention in another area that players are rarely happy to lose a character, especially one they are attached to and have played for a while.  That is actually a big part of the equation in the longer term games, the attachement to the character as the player builds a bigger story and cheats death and survives anf grows is very important.  I've had players very upset when the lose a character, not at the other players, or me, or the game, just a sense of loss that came from building something worthwhile.  SO the longer term games have that dynamic as well, investiture multiplied, so the GM had better make the game worth it...To put it another way, it is only a good GM and player combination that build a long-term game, with an emphasis on roleplay and development,

More, I agree that in many games, character death has an important place, and there are reasons that a good game has safeguards built in to make sure that the more powerful a character gets, the less the random forms of death affect them.  Better saves, better armor, more resistance to damage, better amgical protection, and then, when the shit does still hit the fan, amny games have respawning rules built into the crunch (and hopefully, the fluff, as well). 
(course, when the MOFO green dragon flies off with the bodies...)

So, to return to it, there is a large difference between the feeling of loss when a carefully constructed character, played for a while and developed in lots of roleplay gets removed from the game, and the petulance of 'losing' the game.  The first example is normally not felt as 'losing', but loss.  And to tie part of it back into the OP, normally I feel, as a GM, a sense of loss as well.  I still talk about the SIG charactgers that died, like Hamish, or when Cucino or Kiko died in the Igbar game.  Becasue the GM should be invested in them as well. 
But part of the investiture, I feel is the sense of achievement and survival with the risk of losing that being understood.   

Quote from: Steerpike
This thread is getting very interesting.  There seem to be several salient issues.

Great list here!

Quote1) Should GMs use their control over the game to try and reward certain player character behaviors and punish others?  Should this control be predicated only on the internal logic of the setting?  Is it OK to reward or punish certain gaming styles?

I think you, SP, actually made a good point of this before: GMs and PCs need to more openly discuss what they want out of a game before they start playing it. At that point, I would think it wouldn't matter how the game was governed so long as they agreed upon it and they all have a good understanding of the type of game they're in.

Quote2) Can/should character death in particular be used as a kind of teaching tool for players, to cultivate a certain style of play - i.e. more creative, more cautious, more adaptable, etc.?

If the game was intended to be a sort of gritty, realistic, highly lethal game, then sure it can. I think the main thing is that players should be in agreement - not just the GM - that this sort of teaching tool is appropriate. If I may, I like my occasional foray into highly lethal games, but never for an extended period of time. The way I see it, a game like that needs to be extremely carefully balanced so that creative and daring maneuvers aren't stifled by the fact that death is so omnipresent, lest it stagnate into something boring.

Quote3) How important is the possibility of death or other severely deleterious effects to the enjoyment of the game?  Is a sense of risk integral to the fun?

Good question. I think risk is important, but death? Not so much. As sparkletwist illustrated, risk can be any sort of setback. Sense of risk is certainly correlated to having fun, but I'm not convinced it causes fun.

Quote4) What are the major risks of running an especially lethal game?  Will a deadly game frustrate most players?  How should a GM strive to balance this risk/frustration dichotomy?

In my extremely limited experience, it's keeping players invested in the game. The sense of risk is enjoyable, but after the second or third character death in a row, it gets a little oppressive. It can also cause aggression between the GM and PC, who, aside from unlucky dice rolls, might take it as not playing the way the GM wants them to.

Quote5) Are "save-or-die" effects and the like something of a hold-over or vestige from an earlier era of gaming, or can they have a valuable role in games?  Were they a "mistake" or are they sometimes still a useful tool?

Times change. What was seen as good then might not be now. I don't see them as ever being a mistake, but what I do see is the demographic of tabletop gamers growing, and the game fumbling to evolve alongside it. Though it's not a perfect comparison, look at videogames. With the exception of very few mainstream games, video games are less lethal than ever, with other players able to run over and bring them back to their feet, respawns increasingly frequent, and death meaning only a minor setback. Why? Because designers are starting to realize that their are other, often better ways to challenge players that aren't so "You died. You lost 3 hours of progress, bummer."

Quote6) Should the GM's role primarily be to simulate a world, to offer challenges for players to overcome, or to cooperate with players to build a story?  Are these roles ever at odds, or can they always be reconciled?

I'm definitely more of the "cooperate with players to build a story," but to each their own. I would like to think a good game has all three, and that they aren't exclusive of each other. In FATE, players and GMs offer challenges that enrich the story, and any GM worth his salt should at least try to simulate some modicum of their world in a reasonable manner.

Quote7) Should player success be assumed, or should the GM be "success-neutral"?  Is such a stance even possible?

I don't think success-neutral is possible. There's absolutely no system out there that can possibly cover every rule in every case, so the GM will inevitably have to come up with some rule modifications on the fly for unusual situations. Even if there were some mythical system to cover all rulings, imagine how stifling that would be as a player! There would be no room for creativity if everything is already, by definition, created.

Quote8) How should failures be handled?  What are some strategies for making PC failure "part of the fun"?

Give them a choice in the matter. In FATE, players generally lose any conflicts on their own terms, or ones at least agreed upon by the GM and the player. This'll need some more delving into, but I'm short on time so I can't really give a more detailed answer.

I don't understand why any risk-reward equation is somehow benefited by including out-of-character risk, i.e., the risk of "you can't play this character any more." Does that somehow make it more "risky" (because the player, not just the character, is risking something) and therefore supposedly more interesting, or something? Personally, I like my risk to be in-character-- characters may suffer setbacks, and I don't think anyone's arguing that everything always go right, but the thing about in-character setbacks is that they enrich the character's story and give the player new challenges to overcome and new stories to tell. If the character dies, that character's story ends.

It seems to me to be mutually exclusive to say "you should feel invested in this character" and "the chance to play this character may be taken away from you arbitrarily."

Quote from: LordVreegI've had players very upset when the lose a character, not at the other players, or me, or the game, just a sense of loss that came from building something worthwhile.

See, I don't get this at all.

An RPG is a game. Games are supposed to be fun. When playing in a group where everyone has mature adult outlooks on things, if the game makes someone very upset, then that game is not fun and something is wrong with the game. That person may not (at least overtly) blame the game or GM because they are trying to be mature about it and get past it, but seriously, why do something that ruins someone's fun? What is the point?

Oops, I missed these questions...

Quote from: SteerpikeThis is interesting.  It seems to imply that you're essentially "anti-death" except when it specifically enhances the drama of a given scene, i.e. when two important characters are fighting.  How do you handle things like traps and environmental hazards?  Is it impossible to be killed by them?

Yes, it is impossible. I feel that things like traps and hazards should basically just be there to add interesting complications to the story, as they're far too impersonal to be anything worth a character's life. So, a party member caught in a trap will take some damage (which will make a coming important fight harder) or suffer a negative condition (which does the same thing in a different way) but the story will go on.

Quote from: SteerpikeFor example, let's say we're playing a gritty, realistic WWII game where a single bullet can spell death.

I hope I'm not falling into a trap of thinking everything is a nail simply because I've invented a hammer that I'm rather fond of, but I'm not sure if being "simulationist" is necessarily required for this kind of game-- as long as everyone is on board with the tone, and willing to work together to create it, I feel like the Asura system or some variant thereof would work for this kind of game, as well.

In that case, your problem becomes a non-issue because a lighter, more "narrativist" system like Asura includes plenty of places to bend the narrative and tweak the dice. The Nazi's burst of fire could be mitigated by stunts or consequences, or, at the worst, invoke the "mooks can't kill you" rule and state that the party shows up before Herr Generalfeldmarschall Von Evil.

Quote from: sparkletwist
I don't understand why any risk-reward equation is somehow benefited by including out-of-character risk, i.e., the risk of "you can't play this character any more." Does that somehow make it more "risky" (because the player, not just the character, is risking something) and therefore supposedly more interesting, or something? Personally, I like my risk to be in-character-- characters may suffer setbacks, and I don't think anyone's arguing that everything always go right, but the thing about in-character setbacks is that they enrich the character's story and give the player new challenges to overcome and new stories to tell. If the character dies, that character's story ends.

It seems to me to be mutually exclusive to say "you should feel invested in this character" and "the chance to play this character may be taken away from you arbitrarily."

Quote from: LordVreegI've had players very upset when the lose a character, not at the other players, or me, or the game, just a sense of loss that came from building something worthwhile.

See, I don't get this at all.

An RPG is a game. Games are supposed to be fun. When playing in a group where everyone has mature adult outlooks on things, if the game makes someone very upset, then that game is not fun and something is wrong with the game. That person may not (at least overtly) blame the game or GM because they are trying to be mature about it and get past it, but seriously, why do something that ruins someone's fun? What is the point?

I'm doing it wrong again?  Back to the drawing board....someone tell my players....

Kidding.  Sort of. 

Part of the idea of many RPGs is that they are playing the role of a person or entity involved in a very-high risk activity, most commonly combat, but other perils are part of that role being played.  There is a smaller subset of games where this threat of danger does not exist.
When playing in the larger set, the player normally is understanding that they migh lose that character because of the situations they put that character in.  Normally, the GM puts a lot of reward out there in the same direction of the risk.  It;s the same thing when you are reading a story and you get the feeling that the protagnist is invlunerable, the story is less interesting, or what makes Game of Thrones, so rivetting for people, there is an element of simulationism that,  GASP!. the protagonists are not immortal! 
These are elements that make some games more interesting to a lot of people. But not everyone.

Same thing about the story ending, yes, that character's story might end, and so it matters more to play smarter.  If the risk is 'setback', the need to play intellgently and avoid the game ending is less, to many players.  Not all, but many.  Games have micro and macro scale at the same time.  The quest may be to destroy a dragon, and in lethal games and non lethal games, there can be the risk of success and failure, but at a macro level, the lethal game has another level of failing which makes success much sweeter than in the non lethal game.  When there is a chance of large scale failure, accomplishment means more than if there is not, for many players.  That is how I see risk and reward.

Which is why it is not only interesting the think: 
"It seems to me to be mutually exclusive to say "you should feel invested in this character" and "the chance to play this character may be taken away from you arbitrarily.",
it is often backwards.  You said you don't understand it, and I get that, but for many players, it falls under the gist of, "Better to have played a game that mattered with real consequences I overcame for quite a while than to never have played such a game at all"

And about that, the second part...you are confusing 'fun' with 'rewarding'.  Which is why player after player who loses a character and is upset comes back, because the process is rewarding, sometimes deeply rewarding.  SOme people play RPGs because they are fun, some people play them because they are rewarding, and I daresay there is a subset who gerts both out of it, and I hope my players are in that subset.

Quote from: VreegWhich is why it is not only interesting the think: 
"It seems to me to be mutually exclusive to say "you should feel invested in this character" and "the chance to play this character may be taken away from you arbitrarily.",
it is often backwards.  You said you don't understand it, and I get that, but for many players, it falls under the gist of, "Better to have played a game that mattered with real consequences I overcame for quite a while than to never have played such a game at all"

The point is: why get stuck on death as the only possible "real consequence"?

Quote from: sparkletwist
An RPG is a game. Games are supposed to be fun. When playing in a group where everyone has mature adult outlooks on things, if the game makes someone very upset, then that game is not fun and something is wrong with the game. That person may not (at least overtly) blame the game or GM because they are trying to be mature about it and get past it, but seriously, why do something that ruins someone's fun? What is the point?

What is the point of reading a sad book or ever playing a game (say, Chess) that you can lose? Ostensibly both are for entertainment, but what's the point if you aren't happy at all times?

The fact is that sometimes people like things that involve feeling bad. That feeling bad isn't always just a side effect; sometimes it's part of the point.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

Quote from: VreegWhich is why it is not only interesting the think: 
"It seems to me to be mutually exclusive to say "you should feel invested in this character" and "the chance to play this character may be taken away from you arbitrarily.",
it is often backwards.  You said you don't understand it, and I get that, but for many players, it falls under the gist of, "Better to have played a game that mattered with real consequences I overcame for quite a while than to never have played such a game at all"

The point is: why get stuck on death as the only possible "real consequence"?

The point I was working with was, "why does death matter so much" since it was referenced (in the form of the character being taken away), and few other consequences take the character out of the game so long.  And since it came up in terms of Steerpikes questions.

But if you are bring up the question of other consequence, no one said or intemated it was the only real consequence.  Many other consequences are interesting and game changing and still have a very strong effect, while still being the subject of the ineveitable comment, "At least you didn't die".  And they are more interesting.

I'd like to answer these as well!

Quote from: sparkletwist
Oops, I missed these questions...

Quote from: SteerpikeThis is interesting.  It seems to imply that you're essentially "anti-death" except when it specifically enhances the drama of a given scene, i.e. when two important characters are fighting.  How do you handle things like traps and environmental hazards?  Is it impossible to be killed by them?

Yes, it is impossible. I feel that things like traps and hazards should basically just be there to add interesting complications to the story, as they're far too impersonal to be anything worth a character's life. So, a party member caught in a trap will take some damage (which will make a coming important fight harder) or suffer a negative condition (which does the same thing in a different way) but the story will go on.

I agree with sparkle here. The only time I could ever see a trap killing a character would be when the player was ready to try something else (game, character, etc.) and didn't feel the loss of this one was all that bad - I've had that happen with a character before; their class wasn't turning out the way they thought it would and basically decided that was a good time to try something else. Otherwise, yeah, generally if the dice go way out of their favor I'll at least say "Whoa, that was seriously unlucky. You sure you want to stick with that result?" or something.

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: sparkletwist
An RPG is a game. Games are supposed to be fun. When playing in a group where everyone has mature adult outlooks on things, if the game makes someone very upset, then that game is not fun and something is wrong with the game. That person may not (at least overtly) blame the game or GM because they are trying to be mature about it and get past it, but seriously, why do something that ruins someone's fun? What is the point?

What is the point of reading a sad book or ever playing a game (say, Chess) that you can lose? Ostensibly both are for entertainment, but what's the point if you aren't happy at all times?

The fact is that sometimes people like things that involve feeling bad. That feeling bad isn't always just a side effect; sometimes it's part of the point.

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here because I want to know more: I don't think you can compare chess and a tabletop RPG. Chess, by itself, is a game you can win or lose. You'll probably lose a lot, too, but that's part of understanding and improving upon the game. I don't think you could argue the same for any given RPG game; the rules aren't and can never be fixed enough that it's just winning and losing in any case - you have an arbiter of the game, a GM, who will inevitably govern things in a manner they see fit, and if it's anything like a story or campaign, the heroes won't be able to just lose some of the combats and come back as something completely new. Even with very little backstory, a person can be mechanically involved in their character, and that's the point. You can be mechanically involved in chess while losing, and come back having learned from that loss. I suppose you could argue the same in a tabletop game, but you're not always necessarily getting better at the game - you're getting better at playing the way the GM wants you to. If that's your cup of tea, so be it.

In a story, it's not really about a character you control, it's about the book, and whatever's going on with it. You can enjoy all the characters and the story. When you're the GM, maybe this is the case. As a player, unless the game is extremely collaborative, something like death ends that story for that character that you've been essentially living put the story through. I don't think it's a good comparison, but hey, maybe it really is a case of "to each their own."

Quote from: sparkletwistI hope I'm not falling into a trap of thinking everything is a nail simply because I've invented a hammer that I'm rather fond of, but I'm not sure if being "simulationist" is necessarily required for this kind of game-- as long as everyone is on board with the tone, and willing to work together to create it, I feel like the Asura system or some variant thereof would work for this kind of game, as well.

In that case, your problem becomes a non-issue because a lighter, more "narrativist" system like Asura includes plenty of places to bend the narrative and tweak the dice. The Nazi's burst of fire could be mitigated by stunts or consequences, or, at the worst, invoke the "mooks can't kill you" rule and state that the party shows up before Herr Generalfeldmarschall Von Evil.

I wouldn't necessarily say that all forms of things like stunts and consequences are always incompatible with a gritty game.  But I do think that the GM pulling punches to outright prevent character death would majorly alter the feel of the game I described, especially in the form of a "can't be killed by Mooks" rule.

Take another hypothetical scenario from the same imaginary game.  The PCs are pinned down in a burnt-out hotel and German machine-gun emplacements have the main street covered.  There's a secret tunnel in the cellar the hotel owner has been using to aid the French Resistance, but the PCs don't know about it yet.  German troops are slowly closing in on the hotel through the alleyways - and the PCs are running very low on ammunition.  They need to escape.

Under the gritty/simulationist rules, running out into the street is pretty much certain death.  Unless the players get very, very lucky, they're going to get cut to pieces.  This knowledge adds tension to the situation: near-certain death lurks just outside the front door of the hotel, a swathe of Allied corpses giving testament to the fact.  The PCs must get inventive.  They might start laying an ambush for the German troops, creating a diversion to make a break for it, or scoping out the cellar as a hiding place, leading them to discover the resistance tunnel.  If they make a dash through the alleyways, they're probably going to attempt stealth since they need to conserve their ammunition and can't afford to get in a prolonged firefight.  A high-risk, holding-their-breath game of cat and mouse and ducking into shadows might ensue as they attempt to evade the German troops.

Under the narrativist, lighter system, I would argue, the tension  could very well be significantly lessened.  Secure in the knowledge that they can't die unless it fits the narrative, the players might decide simply to make a dash through the main street ("this sucks, but I'll just use a defensive stunt to tumble aside" or "I'll just take a severe consequence, take a few penalties - we'll be in the Allied camp soon where we can rest up").  Or they might be more inclined to rush out into the alleyway guns blazing - since they're essentially bulletproof vs. mooks, the Germans aren't much of a threat, and they can easily kill a few and grab their weapons to replenish ammunition.

Now, if you had great players who were totally committed to their roles, they might still adopt the more "realistic" strategy to extricate themselves from the tense situation - but I still don't think it would feel as tense.  Narrative concessions could still be OK - but there would be a trade-off.  The GM would have to be very careful to keep things in balance.

I'm emphatically not saying that gritty/simulationist rules > cinematic/narrativist rules - or vice versa.  It depends on the game, on the feel one wants to cultivate, on the type of game you want to play, of course.

Quote from: WeaveI'm going to play the devil's advocate here because I want to know more: I don't think you can compare chess and a tabletop RPG. Chess, by itself, is a game you can win or lose. You'll probably lose a lot, too, but that's part of understanding and improving upon the game. I don't think you could argue the same for any given RPG game; the rules aren't and can never be fixed enough that it's just winning and losing in any case - you have an arbiter of the game, a GM, who will inevitably govern things in a manner they see fit, and if it's anything like a story or campaign, the heroes won't be able to just lose some of the combats and come back as something completely new.

Woah, lots here. I didn't mean it as a perfect comparison; I was mostly just addressing the point of whether and why people want a little difficulty or hurt in their entertainment. I could as easily have picked spicy food for comparison.

Additionally, as others have said winning and losing isn't always a death thing. The variability of objectives is one of RPGs' unique assets. So the "end of play" bit doesn't apply across the board to the "winning and losing" bit.

Finally, while there are those like Sparkle for whom the nature/story of a particular character is a key point of interest, there are others for whom characters are avatars first. For these people, for whom the specifics of the character are secondary, death might not sting as much. Especially if there's an NPC on hand that they can pick up. Roleplayers have complex and not entirely uniform relationships with their characters, and the relationship here might change from game to game for the same player as well.

QuoteEven with very little backstory, a person can be mechanically involved in their character, and that's the point. You can be mechanically involved in chess while losing, and come back having learned from that loss. I suppose you could argue the same in a tabletop game, but you're not always necessarily getting better at the game - you're getting better at playing the way the GM wants you to. If that's your cup of tea, so be it.

I don't buy the "playing the GM" bit for three (ish) reasons.

1) GM plays by specific rules in some games.
2) One of the assets of RPGs is that they are representational. The "immersion" bit ideally means that what would work in "real life" (or in genre as the case may be) works in game.
3) The rules themselves (say, the combat rules) are built tighter in some spots, making things less fiat-ish in the high stakes areas.

None of these is a perfect answer by itself, but together they add a dimension beyond "playing the GM."

Quote from: beejazz

QuoteEven with very little backstory, a person can be mechanically involved in their character, and that's the point. You can be mechanically involved in chess while losing, and come back having learned from that loss. I suppose you could argue the same in a tabletop game, but you're not always necessarily getting better at the game - you're getting better at playing the way the GM wants you to. If that's your cup of tea, so be it.

I don't buy the "playing the GM" bit for three (ish) reasons.

1) GM plays by specific rules in some games.
2) One of the assets of RPGs is that they are representational. The "immersion" bit ideally means that what would work in "real life" (or in genre as the case may be) works in game.
3) The rules themselves (say, the combat rules) are built tighter in some spots, making things less fiat-ish in the high stakes areas.

None of these is a perfect answer by itself, but together they add a dimension beyond "playing the GM."

Chiming in here for a bit.

In poker, the cards you get are random, but it is common poker wisdom that you don't play your hand; you play the other players.  With RPGs, the details will vary, but I think that there is a degree of this going on.  So I think in groups that play regularly, you will get a bit of "playing the GM going on."  The rules may not change, but the types of challenges the PCs face may well follow a pattern.  Maybe a GM likes to throw a lot of traps at the PCs, so the players become suspicious of empty corridors, and so might make sure their rogue (or some character good at finding and disabling traps) is always in front and searching for traps, and that he trains the relevant skills as much as possible.  If the GM never includes traps, though, the PCs, might make the decision to put the Fighter up front, and their rogue might focus on sneaking, and ignore trapfinding skills altogether.  If the GM has a penchant for throwing hordes of squishies at them, the party's wizard might make sure to always have some "fireballs" handy. 

Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium

Quote from: beejazz

QuoteEven with very little backstory, a person can be mechanically involved in their character, and that's the point. You can be mechanically involved in chess while losing, and come back having learned from that loss. I suppose you could argue the same in a tabletop game, but you're not always necessarily getting better at the game - you're getting better at playing the way the GM wants you to. If that's your cup of tea, so be it.

I don't buy the "playing the GM" bit for three (ish) reasons.

1) GM plays by specific rules in some games.
2) One of the assets of RPGs is that they are representational. The "immersion" bit ideally means that what would work in "real life" (or in genre as the case may be) works in game.
3) The rules themselves (say, the combat rules) are built tighter in some spots, making things less fiat-ish in the high stakes areas.

None of these is a perfect answer by itself, but together they add a dimension beyond "playing the GM."

Chiming in here for a bit.

In poker, the cards you get are random, but it is common poker wisdom that you don't play your hand; you play the other players.  With RPGs, the details will vary, but I think that there is a degree of this going on.  So I think in groups that play regularly, you will get a bit of "playing the GM going on."  The rules may not change, but the types of challenges the PCs face may well follow a pattern.  Maybe a GM likes to throw a lot of traps at the PCs, so the players become suspicious of empty corridors, and so might make sure their rogue (or some character good at finding and disabling traps) is always in front and searching for traps, and that he trains the relevant skills as much as possible.  If the GM never includes traps, though, the PCs, might make the decision to put the Fighter up front, and their rogue might focus on sneaking, and ignore trapfinding skills altogether.  If the GM has a penchant for throwing hordes of squishies at them, the party's wizard might make sure to always have some "fireballs" handy. 

Random content generation and non-linear dungeons (or other scenarios) can help immensely with these sorts of issues, assuming one sees them as such.

Quote from: beejazz

Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium

Quote from: beejazz

QuoteEven with very little backstory, a person can be mechanically involved in their character, and that's the point. You can be mechanically involved in chess while losing, and come back having learned from that loss. I suppose you could argue the same in a tabletop game, but you're not always necessarily getting better at the game - you're getting better at playing the way the GM wants you to. If that's your cup of tea, so be it.

I don't buy the "playing the GM" bit for three (ish) reasons.

1) GM plays by specific rules in some games.
2) One of the assets of RPGs is that they are representational. The "immersion" bit ideally means that what would work in "real life" (or in genre as the case may be) works in game.
3) The rules themselves (say, the combat rules) are built tighter in some spots, making things less fiat-ish in the high stakes areas.

None of these is a perfect answer by itself, but together they add a dimension beyond "playing the GM."

Chiming in here for a bit.

In poker, the cards you get are random, but it is common poker wisdom that you don't play your hand; you play the other players.  With RPGs, the details will vary, but I think that there is a degree of this going on.  So I think in groups that play regularly, you will get a bit of "playing the GM going on."  The rules may not change, but the types of challenges the PCs face may well follow a pattern.  Maybe a GM likes to throw a lot of traps at the PCs, so the players become suspicious of empty corridors, and so might make sure their rogue (or some character good at finding and disabling traps) is always in front and searching for traps, and that he trains the relevant skills as much as possible.  If the GM never includes traps, though, the PCs, might make the decision to put the Fighter up front, and their rogue might focus on sneaking, and ignore trapfinding skills altogether.  If the GM has a penchant for throwing hordes of squishies at them, the party's wizard might make sure to always have some "fireballs" handy.  

Random content generation and non-linear dungeons (or other scenarios) can help immensely with these sorts of issues, assuming one sees them as such.

1) yes, one of the reasons that some random charts are useful are for this reason.l  I have a random social effect/even chart that is modified by the PCs social CC roll i use, partially for this reason, to not fall into a rut.

2) and a good GM is always playing the players, as well.  In positive ways (the SIG game was supposed to be a pure dungeon crawl at first, but the in-town time and travel has take up more sessions than the dungeoning has.  This is in response, mainly, to the type of game the players were playing (heavy RP).  Sometimes, it means specifically doing something, within the in-setting logic, that surprises them.
My Igbarian Guys took months to figure out that Harack Don Faden, their ally on the Deductors of the Scarlet Pilums, had actually been turned to an uncompyre.  SO many players are trained by RPGs to see NPCs as unchanging and immutable.

Quote from: LordVreeg2) and a good GM is always playing the players, as well.  In positive ways (the SIG game was supposed to be a pure dungeon crawl at first, but the in-town time and travel has take up more sessions than the dungeoning has.  This is in response, mainly, to the type of game the players were playing (heavy RP).  Sometimes, it means specifically doing something, within the in-setting logic, that surprises them.
My Igbarian Guys took months to figure out that Harack Don Faden, their ally on the Deductors of the Scarlet Pilums, had actually been turned to an uncompyre.  SO many players are trained by RPGs to see NPCs as unchanging and immutable.

This is a good point.  I think that to a certain extent a GM needs to tailor the game to the desires of the players.  This doesn't mean let them run rampant with game-breaking advantages or anything, but the type of game should be determined by what the players on the whole want out of the experience.  Everyone should be having a good time, or else "you're doing it wrong."

And if you know how your players will react to stimuli, you will know how to hook them on something they should follow, or how to throw them a curveball.  One of my favorite moments of this kind was when I was DMing a group that was on a mission for their church.  They found a note revealing that there was a spy in their midst, and they went to inform the authority in the matter, completely unaware that the authority WAS the spy, and that they were tipping their hand.