GM vs PC - You're doing it wrong.

[Weave]

I posted in the tavern recently regarding something I found over on the Paizo boards.

I was wandering about the paizo boards today, and I was reading a thread on "controlling powergamers." Amused, I clicked on it and saw a lot of popular comments that could be summed up as "anything they can break, the GM can break even more,"  or to not play with them, and a lot of talk was of exploiting their character weaknesses in encounters.

Maybe I'm a minority in this, but I feel like this sort of thought is pretty pervasive in a lot of mainstream RPGs, namely, PF, 3E, 4E, etc., and I don't think it breeds good gaming behavior. It shouldn't be about competing with the GM or PC, but working together to create an awesome adventure. Granted, that's not to say ALL the comments were like that (there were a few later on that I could definitely get on board with), and I don't mean to pick so much upon those aforementioned systems, but they do pop up a lot and (at least on the PF boards) get a fair amount of "likes."

Now, as I said, this isn't exclusive of PF, but it's something that I see often enough to give me reason that it's a commonly held viewpoint, i.e., that the GM is a force of competition to the player. I used to run my games like that, and I can tell you firsthand: it's a bad idea, and it only breeds aggression and competition. The best games I've played in were about the player and GM working together to create an awesome story, where I wasn't legitimately afraid to go into the next encounter because I trusted the GM... in fact, I was actually excited to progress the plot just to see what would happen next.

I'm of the opinion that this paradigm needs to change, but I want to investigate why it's already so pervasive in gaming. Thought I'd start a thread to gather more opinions on this, and to vent a little.

[Seraph]

Yeah, the first game or two I DMed, I DMed that way.  Well, not quite.  Mostly just fiat and railroading.  I knew what was going to happen and I'd be damned if I was going to let my players interfere.  It didn't go over well.  There was anger and frustration on both sides.

I have a lot more fun, and I think my players have a lot more fun, when we are working together to build the game experience.  Nowadays I keep an outline of my primary "arc" for the adventure, but it's in flux as the game proceeds.  The directions the PCs go, the choices they make, all affect what else will happen.

[snakefing]

There are a lot of different kinds of players out there, and sometimes they won't match with your game style. In which case, someone will have to adapt, or else you just won't play with them.

To the point of so-called "powergamers", I've seen a couple of types. Some are just obsessed with building up power for their characters, and you can play a co-operative game with them as long as you give them scope to do just that. Of course, this may involve some game balancing issues for the GM if there are other players who seek other things. But that is pretty much normal give and take.

I've also run across some players who treat everything like it was a competition. They try to beat the other players (by having the most powerful character, or whatever) and the GM. I think this kind of player is looking for a different kind of game and maybe can't be integrated as well. And of course, most players have a mix of interests and motivations.

Most players like to have a little challenge thrown in there - something for them to sink their teeth into. In this sense there can be some healthy "competition" with the GM, but the motivation here should be to provide an interesting and challenging game, not to beat anyone or prove anything.

[sparkletwist]

I am personally something of one of these "powergamer" types, but hopefully in a more positive sense than the type that gets complained about a lot. For me it's definitely just about creating an awesome character who can do awesome things, so naturally I try to find the "awesome things" in the system and make use of them. I like participating in the shared story, and having a lot of abilities helps me to participate in the story in a lot of ways. However, it also lets me influence the shared story in a lot of ways.

As others in this thread have alluded to as well, I think that's really the thing that bothers a lot of these GMs about powerful player characters-- the GM, for whatever reason, is looking to run a railroad, and a powerful character isn't necessarily going to stay on the tracks. The competition comes about because there is a very real competition at the table for who is going to exert the most influence over the narrative flow of the story.

Or as I like to put it, if you want complete narrative control, write a book.  :grin:

[Steerpike]

I agree that the paradigm is pervasive and does need to change, but I think the change has to come more from players than the GM ("you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink").  GMs tend to be the ones who pour time and effort into the game, preparing the world and stories for their players; consequently it's frustrating if a player comes along and treats the setting as a Diabloesque vehicle for competition, or for building the "best" character.  Much of this can be solved by being open and honest about expectations before-hand, but too often players and GMs don't have discussions about the kind of game everyone's interested in.

To me, there's a huge difference between building an optimized character and being a "power-gamer" of a certain Munchkin-y type.  Building an optimized character is fine - in fact it's more than fine, it's great, and to be encouraged.  Playing that optimized character as a murder-hobo obsessed only with getting the best loot/abilities, as a cardboard cutout or a collection of stats rather than a character, is usually obnoxious, unless the game was specifically billed as a lowbrow hackfest.

[beejazz]

In my avatar: Two murderhobos. I would love to run that campaign.

Railroads are generally pretty bad. Power gaming can be good or bad. Exploits are bad. Interesting decisions for characters are good.

Mostly nothing everyone here doesn't know.

[sparkletwist]

GMs tend to be the ones who pour time and effort into the game, preparing the world and stories for their players; consequently it's frustrating if a player comes along and treats the setting as a Diabloesque vehicle for competition, or for building the "best" character.

Well, I agree with this-- but I think it still goes both ways, though. After all, a railroad often results when a GM that spends too much time and effort on preparing overly specific stories or one certain area of the world, and is insistent on making sure to get to utilize that preparation. The players can mess it up, but players who are frustrated at being railroaded might behave that way because they don't feel like what they're doing actually matters, too.

Much of this can be solved by being open and honest about expectations before-hand, but too often players and GMs don't have discussions about the kind of game everyone's interested in.

I also agree with this.  :D

[LordVreeg]

What is a GM?

In earlier games, he was often considered a combination of referree, arbiter of the rules, and the guy who played the rest of the world for the players.

Sometimes, he was an opponent of sorts.  Ken St Andre and Tim Kask and Gygax all talked about that element, of not letting it be too easy.

However, I personally never want to be an adversary at all to my players.  The rules and system are the physics engine that we all work under, but the idea is that I am working with them to create the story of the players within the setting.  And I think a sandbox setting is the best for avoiding any railroading, to minimize that friction.

[Weave]

What is a GM?

In earlier games, he was often considered a combination of referree, arbiter of the rules, and the guy who played the rest of the world for the players.

Sometimes, he was an opponent of sorts.  Ken St Andre and Tim Kask and Gygax all talked about that element, of not letting it be too easy.

However, I personally never want to be an adversary at all to my players.  The rules and system are the physics engine that we all work under, but the idea is that I am working with them to create the story of the players within the setting.  And I think a sandbox setting is the best for avoiding any railroading, to minimize that friction.

I think of a GM as your first description, an arbiter of the rules, but also as something more involved than just a judge or referee. Overall, I think of a GM as someone who wants to create a story with the players. I think of a GM as someone who'd want the players to succeed, and be excited over their triumphs.

I'm having a hard time putting into words how I think difficulty should factor into it all. I believe it does, to some degree, make for a better GM, but it's very much about how the GM is challenging them. If failure isn't interesting, it's probably not worth rolling in the first place. I'm also not a fan of failure automatically equating to character death. Failed the climb check? You fall several thousand feet to your death. Sure, that drives suspense for the check, but the finality of death in this case makes it so risky that it's stifling. You can provide challenges and up the suspense in many other ways that don't necessarily end up with the character in a moist heap at the bottom of a ravine.

This is naturally going to vary between players. But for me, I see it like this: the players are going to succeed in their own manner. It's about how they succeed, and what steps they take to get there that makes it fun, interesting, and challenging. Maybe some actions they take delay their triumph (say, the enemy takes over the city) but failure in achieving that is not the end, and eventually they'll have their moment of glory in sight yet again. Ultimately, I'm not looking to throw things at them like obstacles as if I'm some malevolent controller of their fates, but trying to give meaning to their successes; to provide a sense of accomplishment and a journey for them. They, likewise, shape their path with each decision they make, and the story revolves around those things.

[sparkletwist]

I think there's an important distinction here, too, between two things:
- The GM is the referee of the rules, but the rules themselves are decided by the group as a whole.
- The GM actually decides the rules, and then carries them out.

I believe the oldschool "Gygaxian" model tends to favor the latter, whereas I myself am much more in favor of the former.

[LordVreeg]

I think there's an important distinction here, too, between two things:
- The GM is the referee of the rules, but the rules themselves are decided by the group as a whole.
- The GM actually decides the rules, and then carries them out.

I believe the oldschool "Gygaxian" model tends to favor the latter, whereas I myself am much more in favor of the former.

As I often say, I do find these to be a black and white choice so much as a continuum.  But I agree that these are ends of the continuum.
Most older groups agreed on house rules a lot, and it may (or may not) surprise you that most GS rules get a vetting  by PCs and the players have a lot of say as to rule additions or tweaks.  And this is a place in between the 2, as many I am sure exist.

[Kindling]

If failure isn't interesting, it's probably not worth rolling in the first place.

Does the failure count as interesting if its existence makes success interesting?
I'm really not a fan of "save or die" type situations, but I do like a degree of lethality and danger in my game. My players (I can't speak for anyone else) would not enjoy the game if their success was entirely guaranteed. Highly likely is fine, but the risk of failure, character death and other Bad Things happening has to be there to some degree to make the successes feel worthwhile.

[sparkletwist]

I think of "interesting failure" as a situation that introduces complications rather than stopping the adventure in its tracks.

For example, let's say you're rolling to pick a lock. If you fail the roll, and all that means you can't pick the lock and the adventure stops, that's not very interesting. If failing the roll means that you fumble and make a lot of noise, dropping your tools on the floor with a loud clatter, and then an orc comes bursting through the door demanding to know what's going on-- well, you get it.
That's more interesting, isn't it.  :grin:

[Kindling]

Oh, absolutely, but Weave was saying in his post that he sees long-term player success as a given, whereas I'm saying that a chance of total failure or death enhances the experience for my players. It's not a big chance by any means, but when they win battles knowing that if they had rolled badly and/or used foolish tactics their characters would end up killed or crippled the victory seems more deserved. Their long-term success is highly likely - it wouldn't be much fun if they were more likely to lose - but it's not entirely guaranteed.

EDIT: On the other hand, I do agree completely with everything else in Weave's post. As long as they are still alive and able to function (not paralysed or incurably insane or whatever) there should be a path to victory - although maybe not the victory they were originally after - open to them. Failed to stop the Evil Cult performing their Dread Summoning Ritual? Now the adventure becomes about fighting off the Things From The Beyond that they unleashed on the world!

[Steerpike]

I'm with Kindling.  Part of the fun as a player for me is when I'm given a situation that seems challenging and really makes me think my way round a problem since the obvious or straightforward solution would be perilous.  Of course failures should be interesting and one should be rooting for the PCs to succeed, but part of being a GM is creating a series of challenges.

In some games of the more sandboxy variety, I'm also in favour of the GM not pulling punches in order to contribute to verisimilitude.  For example, right now I'm GMing a Planescape game.  If my 3rd level PCs decided, for some reason, that they wanted to steal a contract from the Tower of Arcanaloths (Arcanaloth = CR 16), I would have NPCs warn them that's a terrible idea and would give them several opportunities to back out or pursue alternatives, but if they persisted, I wouldn't go easy on them.