Rules DMs have to follow

[David Alex Lamb]

[note followup to just rgfd]

A recent thread in rgf.dnd raised the issue of players "overruling" the GM;
some posters responded that this was ludicrous -- "the GM is God" approach. I
mentioned that there could be examples where, before the game started, the
players and GMs agreed to some constraints on the way the DM would run the
game. My slightly strained example was "excuse me, Mr. DM, but we agreed 'no
undead' when we started a few months ago, so why are we facing a wraith now?"
This isn't quite "overruling" perhaps -- just drawing to the DM's attention a
mismatch of expectations about the game -- but is still an example where a
player might reasonably expect a change in the DM's decision(s).

This issue shows up in rgfa as "game contract" issues, a term of art on rgfa
that includes the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that some players or the
DM just assumed certain rules held, and so never thought to make them
explicit. The etymology is from Rousseau's "social contract", a (sometimes)
unwritten code of behaviour governing the relationship of individuals to the
state. I didn't want to asume the term would be understood in the same way on
rgfd, so I spent a few words on this intro.

Here are some more examples for people to think about, along with
circumstances that would lead to players and GM detecting the mismatch.

1. The players are beginners, and unfamiliar with tactics, so the DM will run
encounters that assume the party will handle themselves sub-optimally in
fights. Often but not always observable by reflection on the way the
fight went.
2. Players often have a specific mental image of their character ("character
concept"), to which the DM will only force major changes with player
consent (unless the changes are strictly temporary, as in a magic jar
posession). Observable when the DM communicates the change to the player.
Special case: there are rarely (possibly never) any encounters that give
the player's character "spotlight time".
3. Exercise of player skill is [is not] important to some [any] of the
players, so the DM will not [may] negate the effect of skill by fudging
dice results or encounter setup. Detected (only?) by long-term
observation.
4. The players (and GM) may assume certain events or kinds of enounters are
or are not part of the game. The "no undead" example fits here trivially.
"Mature themes" might be off-limits for some groups, OK in others,
expected in some. Assumptions like this one might not be noticed until
someone gets upset.

Special case of #2: you might think of character death as one of those
"significant changes in character concept".

Special case of #3 ("no plan survives contact with the foe"): GM believes all
major battles must involve a struggle, so upon hearing the players' plans,
modifies the setup or NPC behaviour to negate enough of the plan to avoid a
"cakewalk". The players wouldn't know this was happening on any one fight,
but could notice that their plans *never* work out after many encounters.

So, to those who expressed something along the lines of "the DM is God"; does
it seem reaonable that the DM could be held to obey meta-rules like these
ones?

[forumite]

My beef with "GM is god" is not that he makes the rules. If I'm not
happy playing with those rules, I just wouldn't play. It's more of
being a tyrant. I would object if my character can never accomplish
anything. I would object that once my character can do something
nifty, define nifty as anything you want, he can never benefit from
that niftiness. I would object if my character never even gets to do
something nifty, thus forever being an incompetent slob at the mercy
of every monster and NPC that comes his way who are all powerful and
all knowing. I would object if a party member is killed every game
session, even if by some miracle it's never mine.

I have, unfortunately, played with four GMs like that. The first just
hated how I played lawful good clerics in general, thus hated me
personally, and took it out on whatever character I played in his
game. I quit.

The second was simply a character dying every game. I quit.

The third was harder to spot. There were a series of all powerful all
knowing NPCs about, but my character was able to do stuff. However,
eventually a long series of things "just went wrong" for my character
while everything "just went right" for another party member, and a
third player kept having his character killed off every other session.
I was increasingly not having fun, and it showed. I quit as well as
being kicked out.

The fourth also just hated me as a person because of how I played a
paladin, thus my character could do nothing right. I quit and was
kicked out simultaneously.

Special note to Gaurelin and "Forest Avenue Subway Station" group: I
am not speaking about either of you. These are GMs during college and
immediately after college before I met you. I really did enjoy your
games.

To end on a happy note, though, I am pleased to say that I am having a
good time with my current group. To be honest there are "all powerful
all knowing" NPCs in this campaign, but all party members are "all
powerful all knowing" in each his own way as well. For example, my
character is the baron of our home city, and the party literally
achieved world peace, albeit is was necessary because Armageddon is
coming in 6 game months :-P.

Gerald Katz

[Silveraxe]

Post by David Alex Lamb
[note followup to just rgfd]
A recent thread in rgf.dnd raised the issue of players "overruling" the GM;
some posters responded that this was ludicrous -- "the GM is God" approach. > I mentioned that there could be examples where, before the game started, the
players and GMs agreed to some constraints on the way the DM would run the
game. My slightly strained example was "excuse me, Mr. DM, but we agreed 'no
undead' when we started a few months ago, so why are we facing a wraith now?"

<snip>

The DM is most definitely NOT God.
The key word here, IMO, is "predictability."
For any action, there should be a finite set of outcomes, known (or,
at least, available for checking) to both players and DM. This set is
usually defined in the rulebooks.
The percentage of outcomes for a given action that can be accurately
predicted by the player constitutes player skill.

Silveraxe's Rule of GMing no.1: The DM should never be allowed to
announce an outcome outside the possible (within preset rules) set.

Therefore he is not omnipotent. Therefore he is not "God" by that
definition.

The set of possible outcomes can be expanded through houserules, no
argument there, but those house rules should be known to the players
WAY ahead of the first occurence of each houserule and, preferably,
before character creation.

There's also "Artifact Level Magic," usually for plot devices.
That is magic that does not duplicate any published magic and is not
100% within the rules.
While allowable, it should be used sparringly and only for significant
effect.

Post by David Alex Lamb
Special case of #3 ("no plan survives contact with the foe"): GM believes all
major battles must involve a struggle, so upon hearing the players' plans,
modifies the setup or NPC behaviour to negate enough of the plan to avoid a
"cakewalk". The players wouldn't know this was happening on any one fight,
but could notice that their plans *never* work out after many encounters.

Oh, ick. Excuse me while I retch violently ... Back ...
The first time the DM pulls something like this, I'd gather all the
players and lay our plans in secret, then communicate and coordinate
by passing notes.
Then I'd start writing down my actions in secret, asking the DM to do
the same, and reveal our notes simultaneously, like in Diplomacy.
The most obvious and often encountered example, IME, is the ready
action.
PC: I ready to counterspell the magic missile machinegun sorcerer.
DM: Oh, yeah? This round he does not cast magic missile. He draws
crossbow and shoots you.
The second time, I leave, never to return.

D&D is a game of probabilities.
Players know that their character have good odds against some things,
and poor odds against others. If, to quote Terry Pratchett, one in a
million odds come up everytime, there's no point in juggling the
statistics, is there?
Let's all be average because the DM will cut down high odds and raise
poor odds anyway to avoid both cakewalks and TPKs.

Post by David Alex Lamb
So, to those who expressed something along the lines of "the DM is God"; does
it seem reaonable that the DM could be held to obey meta-rules like these
ones?

I think my answer is obvious.

Silveraxe.

[Sea Wasp]

<snip> The DM is most definitely NOT God.

Barring a game-contractual agreement to the contrary, he most
certainly is.

The key word here, IMO, is "predictability."

The key word should be "consistency".

For any action, there should be a finite set of outcomes, known (or,
at least, available for checking) to both players and DM. This set is
usually defined in the rulebooks.

No. There is not now, nor will there ever be, a published set of
rules which both provide for a world of reasonably realistic
complexity AND which covers all possible sets of outcomes. That is, in
fact, why you must have a GM and why a computer cannot, at present, do
the same job one tenth as well. The rules, for instance, do not, and
cannot, tell you how any given character will react to a given
circumstance. That is determined by the player, a living, breathing
human being who will make choices based on anything from a simple gut
instinct to a complex analysis of the character from their point of view.

Silveraxe's Rule of GMing no.1: The DM should never be allowed to
announce an outcome outside the possible (within preset rules) set.

The possible set includes "all things", as virtually all rules say
"the GM may modify any of these rules".

As there are many aspects to my world which are not known to the PCs,
and may not be known to the players, they CANNOT anticipate certain
actions. If, for instance, they had never heard of the Great
Werewolves, they would have no way of knowing the set of events which
would transpire if they went up against them, especially as the
effects which the Great Wolves can have are utterly unique in some
circumstances; no other creatures or beings can effectively duplicate
those abilities.

The GM is God. The players are lesser deities who may actually talk
to God and determine if God might change his mind about something, but
they cannot ORDER God. At most, they can decide that God will have no
more lesser deities to kick around and leave. But that, and their
control of their own characters, is the only influence they may have
in the GM's world -- again barring a game contract which states otherwise.

[Silveraxe]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Silveraxe
The key word here, IMO, is "predictability."

The key word should be "consistency".

Those two overlap a lot.

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Silveraxe
For any action, there should be a finite set of outcomes, known (or,
at least, available for checking) to both players and DM. This set is
usually defined in the rulebooks.

No. There is not now, nor will there ever be, a published set of
rules which both provide for a world of reasonably realistic
complexity AND which covers all possible sets of outcomes. That is, in
fact, why you must have a GM and why a computer cannot, at present, do
the same job one tenth as well. The rules, for instance, do not, and
cannot, tell you how any given character will react to a given
circumstance.

I'm not talking about character conversations or internal emotional
reactions. Of course there are no rules for that.
I am talking about physics and the way reality works.
That particular set of rules should be well established before the
game so that the players can make decisions based on it and expect
predictable results.

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Silveraxe
Silveraxe's Rule of GMing no.1: The DM should never be allowed to
announce an outcome outside the possible (within preset rules) set.

The possible set includes "all things", as virtually all rules say
"the GM may modify any of these rules".

So if you wake up grumpy one morning, suddenly things fall upwards,
strength and dexterity are no longer the key stats for physical combat
and every NPC has a dozen levels in the PC-killer class?

Post by Sea Wasp
As there are many aspects to my world which are not known to the PCs,
and may not be known to the players, they CANNOT anticipate certain
actions. If, for instance, they had never heard of the Great
Werewolves, they would have no way of knowing the set of events which
would transpire if they went up against them,

If you will read my first post, I said "known or at least available
for checking."
1. I am willing to bet that you have stats for Greater Werewolves
written down and you can show them to the players for "forensic"
purposes. You do NOT pull stats and abilities as you go and as they
are needed. For example, if a clever player manages to put a wall of
stone between his character and the chasing angry werewolf, the
werewolf will not suddenly develop Passwall as a monster ability
because you need that PC dead. Right?
2. Greater Werewolves still fall downwards, don't they?
3. Two GWs are similar enough to infer at least a little about their
general "properties," right?

Post by Sea Wasp
The GM is God. The players are lesser deities who may actually talk
to God and determine if God might change his mind about something, but
they cannot ORDER God. At most, they can decide that God will have no
more lesser deities to kick around and leave.

Of course, but that is not the point.
If you go that route, nobody can ORDER anything, ever, because there's
always suicide as an alternative to obeying the order.
For the purpose of this discussion, let us assume that we want to keep
the group together.

Silveraxe.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Silveraxe

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Silveraxe
The key word here, IMO, is "predictability."

The key word should be "consistency".

Those two overlap a lot.

But they are not the same. For instance, the behavior of hurricanes
this season has been perfectly consistent with historic hurricane
behavior, but aside from very short-term work, has been rather
damaging to predictions.

To address the rest of your points:

I know the way my multiverse works. I have written down a great deal
of it, though not all of it. I do NOT show it all to the players. They
have to either trust me or not. If they trust me, then they know that
there *IS* a reason for what they see, even if it SEEMS to contradict
what they know, and they know this because they know that I
**DETEST** inconsistency. So if things DID start falling upwards,
they'd know that I have a reason. I probably won't TELL them the
reason because that's part of the adventure of the world. I won't TELL
them the Laws of Magic, although they're welcome to try to deduce them
and then perform experiments to verify or falsify their theories. I
won't always show them the stats of the monsters they faced. God keeps
secrets, and sometimes you'll have to trust God.

Insofar as the leaving, I actually don't agree that you always want
to keep the group together. Sometimes you have people with mutually
opposed perceptions who at first seemed to be acceptable in the same
group, but then it becomes more and more clear that they are NOT
compatible -- play goals or style are not working together. And if one
of the problems of one or more players is that they don't trust the GM
and want to demand to see everything, even the stuff the GM prefers
NOT to show, then they'll have to either change their play style or
vote with their feet. (the same is true with other incompatibilities;
if one set of players wants deep and long-running character
interaction and the others are interested in fast-paced action, one or
the other group will probably have to choose to leave. I have done
that myself on occasion.)

[forumite]

Post by Sea Wasp
I know the way my multiverse works. I have written down a great deal
of it, though not all of it. I do NOT show it all to the players. They
have to either trust me or not. If they trust me, then they know that
there *IS* a reason for what they see, even if it SEEMS to contradict
what they know, and they know this because they know that I
**DETEST** inconsistency. So if things DID start falling upwards,
they'd know that I have a reason. I probably won't TELL them the
reason because that's part of the adventure of the world. I won't TELL
them the Laws of Magic, although they're welcome to try to deduce them
and then perform experiments to verify or falsify their theories. I
won't always show them the stats of the monsters they faced. God keeps
secrets, and sometimes you'll have to trust God.

Sigh. I wish I knew your players. When I attempt to GM a regular
campaign things happened the players didn't understand why. It was
supposed to be a mystery, something they'd learn in coming adventures.
Alas, they labeled me a bad GM because I did illogical things and
stopped playing. I do the reverse, not have things be so mysterious.
Alas, I'm a bad GM they say because I tell everything up front and
leave no room for mystery. I just can't win.

Oh well. I just remain a player and content myself to GMing one-shots
at conventions.

Gerald Katz

[Geoff Watson]

Post by forumite

Post by Sea Wasp
I know the way my multiverse works. I have written down a great deal
of it, though not all of it. I do NOT show it all to the players. They
have to either trust me or not. If they trust me, then they know that
there *IS* a reason for what they see, even if it SEEMS to contradict
what they know, and they know this because they know that I
**DETEST** inconsistency. So if things DID start falling upwards,
they'd know that I have a reason. I probably won't TELL them the
reason because that's part of the adventure of the world. I won't TELL
them the Laws of Magic, although they're welcome to try to deduce them
and then perform experiments to verify or falsify their theories. I
won't always show them the stats of the monsters they faced. God keeps
secrets, and sometimes you'll have to trust God.

Sigh. I wish I knew your players. When I attempt to GM a regular
campaign things happened the players didn't understand why. It was
supposed to be a mystery, something they'd learn in coming adventures.
Alas, they labeled me a bad GM because I did illogical things and
stopped playing. I do the reverse, not have things be so mysterious.
Alas, I'm a bad GM they say because I tell everything up front and
leave no room for mystery. I just can't win.

Next time something mysterious happens, why not tell them that it's
a mystery and not just inconsistant GMimg?

Geoff.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Geoff Watson

Post by forumite

Post by Sea Wasp
I know the way my multiverse works. I have written down a great deal
of it, though not all of it. I do NOT show it all to the players. They
have to either trust me or not. If they trust me, then they know that
there *IS* a reason for what they see, even if it SEEMS to contradict
what they know, and they know this because they know that I
**DETEST** inconsistency. So if things DID start falling upwards,
they'd know that I have a reason. I probably won't TELL them the
reason because that's part of the adventure of the world. I won't TELL
them the Laws of Magic, although they're welcome to try to deduce them
and then perform experiments to verify or falsify their theories. I
won't always show them the stats of the monsters they faced. God keeps
secrets, and sometimes you'll have to trust God.

Sigh. I wish I knew your players. When I attempt to GM a regular
campaign things happened the players didn't understand why. It was
supposed to be a mystery, something they'd learn in coming adventures.
Alas, they labeled me a bad GM because I did illogical things and
stopped playing. I do the reverse, not have things be so mysterious.
Alas, I'm a bad GM they say because I tell everything up front and
leave no room for mystery. I just can't win.

Next time something mysterious happens, why not tell them that it's
a mystery and not just inconsistant GMimg?

The proper way to say it is "Sore wa... HIMITSU desu!" with an
infuriatingly smug smile on your face.

[Senator Blutarsky]

Post by Geoff Watson

Post by forumite
Sigh. I wish I knew your players. When I attempt to GM a regular
campaign things happened the players didn't understand why. It was
supposed to be a mystery, something they'd learn in coming adventures.
Alas, they labeled me a bad GM because I did illogical things and
stopped playing. I do the reverse, not have things be so mysterious.
Alas, I'm a bad GM they say because I tell everything up front and
leave no room for mystery. I just can't win.

Next time something mysterious happens, why not tell them that it's
a mystery and not just inconsistant GMimg?

Precisely. I've never had a problem maintaining mystery
in this kind of a situation because (1) I've established
a reputation for knowing and following the rules of the
game, and (2) if a player protests that what I'm doing
is "illogical" or against the established rules, I just
tell them, "Yes, I'm aware of the rules in this case,
and there's a reason why it's happening this way."

After it will no longer affect the outcome, I'm always
quite happy to explain what happened in game-mechanical
terms, and--in the unlikely event that I *did* err in
some way--apologize for breaking the rules. I've never
been called a "bad GM" or (as far as I know) had a
player quit because of my GMing.

-Bluto

[Silveraxe]

Post by Senator Blutarsky

Post by Geoff Watson
Next time something mysterious happens, why not tell them that it's
a mystery and not just inconsistant GMimg?

After it will no longer affect the outcome, I'm always
quite happy to explain what happened in game-mechanical
terms, and--in the unlikely event that I *did* err in
some way--apologize for breaking the rules.

A PERFECT answer.
Now, if only we could get Sea Wasp to agree ...
But he won't, 'cause Gods don't have to explain or apologize. :(

Silveraxe.

[forumite]

Post by Geoff Watson

Post by forumite
Sigh. I wish I knew your players. When I attempt to GM a regular
campaign things happened the players didn't understand why. It was
supposed to be a mystery, something they'd learn in coming adventures.
Alas, they labeled me a bad GM because I did illogical things and
stopped playing. I do the reverse, not have things be so mysterious.
Alas, I'm a bad GM they say because I tell everything up front and
leave no room for mystery. I just can't win.

Next time something mysterious happens, why not tell them that it's
a mystery and not just inconsistant GMimg?
Geoff.

I did. They didn't accept that response.

Gerald Katz

[Sea Wasp]

Post by forumite
I did. They didn't accept that response.

My response would be "I don't read the last pages of books first. I
don't ask people to tell me about critical plot points before I reach
them in a movie. You as players are asking for explanations which
would spoiler the game in precisely the same way. If you can't accept
that I do, in fact, know what I'm doing, you don't want to be playing
with me. You will find out what you want to know when the time is
right, but this is not the time." If they leave, fine, I've got six
other players waiting to take the place of every one of them.

I've never had any player even consider leaving for reasons like
that, however.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

[trimmed to .advocacy only]

Post by forumite

Post by Geoff Watson

Post by forumite
Sigh. I wish I knew your players. When I attempt to GM a regular
campaign things happened the players didn't understand why. It was
supposed to be a mystery, something they'd learn in coming adventures.
Alas, they labeled me a bad GM because I did illogical things and
stopped playing. I do the reverse, not have things be so mysterious.
Alas, I'm a bad GM they say because I tell everything up front and
leave no room for mystery. I just can't win.

Next time something mysterious happens, why not tell them that it's
a mystery and not just inconsistant GMimg?

I did. They didn't accept that response.

A couple of things that might help (no guarantees):

(1) Some scenarios require more player trust in the GM than normal.
Try not to start a campaign with one of those unless you already have
a good relationship with these particular players. Do something more
straightforward instead; let the trust develop.

(2) Share a bit of your GMing thinking with the players all the time,
so that they get a feel for how you run the game: don't keep too many
secrets. (I think this is Peter's point, less stridently stated.)
For example, I tend to beef aloud to my players when an NPC "insists
on doing something I don't want him to" (I know, it's a metaphor) or
when a rule gets in the way of something I'd have liked to see happen.
This not only lets me blow off steam, it tells the players that I
will stick to world logic and rules even when they are inconvenient
or annoying for me. Then they're more likely to trust me on such
points later.

(3) Don't have too much time between the first appearance of a
mysterious thing and its explanation. The longer you wait and the
more mysteries pile up, the harder it will be to take things on
trust.

(4) Look around to see if something else is wrong. Sometimes players
know that they are unhappy but don't know why, and will guess wildly.
Maybe you can spot what's really bothering them. One guess is that
it's an inability to believe in the game world, so when it's mysterious
it seems arbitrary and when it's not mysterious it seems mechanical.
Maybe a different world-design strategy would help.

(5) If something is really odd in the game world, having NPCs
mention how odd it is can help show the players that you know what
you're doing. For example, if spell X doesn't work underwater, but
the villain manages to use it underwater, magician allies of the PCs
can say "How did he do that? I'll offer a reward if you can find
out how."

(6) The sad truth is, some player/GM combos will never work.
Sometimes you have to cut your losses. But it sounds like you have
had trouble (as player and GM) several times, so there may be
a pattern you can try to change.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Rick Pikul]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
(3) Don't have too much time between the first appearance of a
mysterious thing and its explanation. The longer you wait and the
more mysteries pile up, the harder it will be to take things on
trust.

If you have to wait to reveal what's going on, an idea occurs to me to
swipe something from wargaming[1]: Write down what it is, seal it in an
envelope, and let one of the players keep it


[1] It's about what is done with things like hidden units.

[David Meadows]

Post by forumite

Post by Geoff Watson
Next time something mysterious happens, why not tell them that it's
a mystery and not just inconsistant GMimg?
Geoff.

I did. They didn't accept that response.

I wouldn't GM for those players. Seriously, I would just fold the game and
do something else instead. I can't see any enjoyment in running a group like
that.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by forumite
I did. They didn't accept that response.

You have to master the proper phrase and expression: "Sore wa....
HIMITSU desu!" ^_^

[David Alex Lamb]

Post by Sea Wasp
You have to master the proper phrase and expression: "Sore wa....
HIMITSU desu!" ^_^

Please translate this for those of us lacking in Japanese.

[Russell Wallace]

Post by David Alex Lamb

Post by Sea Wasp
You have to master the proper phrase and expression: "Sore wa....
HIMITSU desu!" ^_^

Please translate this for those of us lacking in Japanese.

"That is a SECRET!" (As immortalized in the anime series 'Slayers
Next', which is where I swiped it from for signature purposes.)

[Sea Wasp]

Post by David Alex Lamb

Post by Sea Wasp
You have to master the proper phrase and expression: "Sore wa....
HIMITSU desu!" ^_^

Please translate this for those of us lacking in Japanese.

"Ahh, now THAT is.... A SECRET!!!" -- Xellos the so-called
"Trickster Priest", whenever asked any question whose answer might
spoil his fun.

[Silveraxe]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Silveraxe

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Silveraxe
The key word here, IMO, is "predictability."

The key word should be "consistency".

Those two overlap a lot.

But they are not the same. For instance, the behavior of hurricanes
this season has been perfectly consistent with historic hurricane
behavior, but aside from very short-term work, has been rather
damaging to predictions.

Very well, I concede. Consistency works just as well as
Predictability.

Post by Sea Wasp
I know the way my multiverse works. I have written down a great deal
of it, though not all of it. I do NOT show it all to the players. They
have to either trust me or not. If they trust me, then they know that
there *IS* a reason for what they see, even if it SEEMS to contradict
what they know, and they know this because they know that I
**DETEST** inconsistency.

1. If you are limited by consistency, you are not God.
A God is, by definition, omnipotent, among other things.
So a God could create events which are arbitrary, whimsical, and
*gasp* inconsistent. You do not. No DM should.
You, as DM, are NOT God, nor should you ever be.

2. You have established trust. Not everybody is so lucky.
We were talking about the DM being able/allowed to change outcomes for
a "higher" interest even if those outcomes contradict internal
logic/consistency or, the way I put it, if they are not predictable
within the game.
A DM who does that is, IMO, NOT trustworthy.
A good way to prove that you, as DM, do not change things on the fly
is to have them written down and submit them as proof when the players
suspect foul play.

Post by Sea Wasp
So if things DID start falling upwards,
they'd know that I have a reason. I probably won't TELL them the
reason because that's part of the adventure of the world.

I agree with that.
But in a consistent reality, PCs should be able to discover the reason
and, possibly, duplicate that result with the right amount of
resources.
With a God DM, that is not required. Things could be falling upwards
for no existing reason other than "the villain HAS to get away," or
"this plot MUST go on," or simply because he confuses weirdness with
innovation.

Post by Sea Wasp
I won't always show them the stats of the monsters they faced.

Of course not. Not always and especially not during the fight.
But if this monster hit abnormally often, for abnormal amounts of
damage, in abnormal conditions, (abnormal enough for a reasonable
player to suspect fudged play,) the best way to reestablish trust is
to show the monster's (written beforehand) combat statistics and prove
that you handled the fight correctly.

To summarize:
by your own admission, you are not a God DM.
You have limits and those limits are established beforehand (in your
case, consistency.)

The original question remains: would you allow players to point out
those limits to you and would you attempt to prove that you were
acting within those limits?
Or would you just say "It works because I said so and it's my way or
the highway?"

Silveraxe.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Silveraxe
by your own admission, you are not a God DM.
You have limits and those limits are established beforehand (in your
case, consistency.)

No, I am God. I am, however, a Just and Wise God, not an Arbitrary
and Capricious God. I *CAN* be inconsistent if I wish, it just offends
*MY* personal sense of order.

Post by Silveraxe
The original question remains: would you allow players to point out
those limits to you and would you attempt to prove that you were
acting within those limits?
Or would you just say "It works because I said so and it's my way or
the highway?"

Depends on what the players were pointing out. If it was something
which was already past and on which their knowledge would have no
effect, if I had something written down, I might show them. If it was
something where explaining it would damage the campaign by revealing
stuff that they would be better off NOT knowing now, I generally
won't. I'll simply say "I know that doesn't make sense. Odd, isn't it.
Maybe you'll find out why that's happening. *I* know why, of course."
(with my current players, that would actually just be "I know." and an
evil grin.)

[Geoff Watson]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Silveraxe
The original question remains: would you allow players to point out
those limits to you and would you attempt to prove that you were
acting within those limits?
Or would you just say "It works because I said so and it's my way or
the highway?"

Depends on what the players were pointing out. If it was something
which was already past and on which their knowledge would have no
effect, if I had something written down, I might show them. If it was
something where explaining it would damage the campaign by revealing
stuff that they would be better off NOT knowing now, I generally
won't. I'll simply say "I know that doesn't make sense. Odd, isn't it.
Maybe you'll find out why that's happening. *I* know why, of course."
(with my current players, that would actually just be "I know." and an
evil grin.)

One problem is that many bad DMs will say something similar,
and then try to work out an excuse(or distraction, so the players
will hopefully forget about it), rather than admit a mistake.

Geoff.

[David Johnston]

Post by Silveraxe

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Silveraxe

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Silveraxe
The key word here, IMO, is "predictability."

The key word should be "consistency".

Those two overlap a lot.

But they are not the same. For instance, the behavior of hurricanes
this season has been perfectly consistent with historic hurricane
behavior, but aside from very short-term work, has been rather
damaging to predictions.

Very well, I concede. Consistency works just as well as
Predictability.

Post by Sea Wasp
I know the way my multiverse works. I have written down a great deal
of it, though not all of it. I do NOT show it all to the players. They
have to either trust me or not. If they trust me, then they know that
there *IS* a reason for what they see, even if it SEEMS to contradict
what they know, and they know this because they know that I
**DETEST** inconsistency.

1. If you are limited by consistency, you are not God.
A God is, by definition, omnipotent, among other things.
So a God could create events which are arbitrary, whimsical, and
*gasp* inconsistent

If It had that personality. Apparently for the most It doesn't.

[Peter Knutsen]

Post by Silveraxe
I'm not talking about character conversations or internal emotional
reactions. Of course there are no rules for that.
I am talking about physics and the way reality works.
That particular set of rules should be well established before the
game so that the players can make decisions based on it and expect
predictable results.

The most powerful decision a player can make, *ever*, is whether
or not to consent to play in the campaign that the GM is offering.

Therefore, the offering of much information, including full
disclosure of the highly transparent and objective rules that
will be used during the campaign, is the first and most
important way in which a GM can empower a potential player.

[John Rudd]

Post by Peter Knutsen

Post by Silveraxe
I'm not talking about character conversations or internal emotional
reactions. Of course there are no rules for that.
I am talking about physics and the way reality works.
That particular set of rules should be well established before the
game so that the players can make decisions based on it and expect
predictable results.

The most powerful decision a player can make, *ever*, is whether
or not to consent to play in the campaign that the GM is offering.
Therefore, the offering of much information, including full
disclosure of the highly transparent and objective rules that
will be used during the campaign, is the first and most
important way in which a GM can empower a potential player.

And complete hogwash, as well.


Among completely different game groups, some of the most enjoyable games
I have either played in or run, were games in which the players were a
great deal in the dark about things that were going on around them (both
in setting and system). And it goes beyond my own experience as well.

It is true that the most powerful decision the player can make is the
one about whether not to get/stay involved in a particular game group
and a particular game. But, that does not require full disclosure from
the GM to the player. Sometimes it involves trust that the GM, while
not giving full disclosure, is doing something that is going to be fun
for the entire group. Sometimes you have to give that trust blindly
(when you first enter a group), and some times you gain that trust over
time.

But, the idea that it has to be done by full, transparent, objective
disclosure up front is pure hogwash.

But, then, in this thread, it has become pretty apparent from things
that you have said that you and I should never game together. I seem to
have quite a good streak of luck in my 25 years of gaming to have never
encountered a gamer like you.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by John Rudd
But, the idea that it has to be done by full, transparent, objective
disclosure up front is pure hogwash.

Peter didn't actually say you *had* to do that, he said it was a good
way to empower a potential player. If you don't want to empower your
players, that's fine.
--
Ed Chauvin IV

DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L, use
X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by kids,
since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using modifier G
@ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

[Peter Knutsen]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by John Rudd
But, the idea that it has to be done by full, transparent, objective
disclosure up front is pure hogwash.

Peter didn't actually say you *had* to do that, he said it was a good
way to empower a potential player. If you don't want to empower your
players, that's fine.

Just to clarify, I do not hold the opinion that it is okay for
GMs to not empower their players. I hold the opinion that GMs
who do not want to empower their players - in fact even GMs who
merely don't go out of their way to empower their players -
should get the fuck out from behind the GM's screen, and start
doing something else.

[David Meadows]

Post by Peter Knutsen
Just to clarify, I do not hold the opinion that it is okay for
GMs to not empower their players. I hold the opinion that GMs
who do not want to empower their players - in fact even GMs who
merely don't go out of their way to empower their players -
should get the fuck out from behind the GM's screen, and start
doing something else.

Can you define "empower" in a game-playing sense?

[Marc L.]

Post by David Meadows
Can you define "empower" in a game-playing sense?

Means doing things Peter's way, or no way.

[David Alex Lamb]

Post by Marc L.

Post by David Meadows
Can you define "empower" in a game-playing sense?

Means doing things Peter's way, or no way.

I know Peter tends to go overboard by many readers' standards, but I think
this is a little unfair. Peter favours rules that increase players' control
over the game and limit the GM's. It's pretty easy to see why one would call
that 'empowering'.

[Keith Davies]

Post by David Alex Lamb

Post by Marc L.

Post by David Meadows
Can you define "empower" in a game-playing sense?

Means doing things Peter's way, or no way.

I know Peter tends to go overboard by many readers' standards, but I
think this is a little unfair. Peter favours rules that increase
players' control over the game and limit the GM's. It's pretty easy
to see why one would call that 'empowering'.

Sure. Marc is referring to Peter's "One True Wayism"... it's not that
Peter insists on giving players a lot of control, but that he insists
that it's the Only Right Way To Play.


Keith

[David Johnston]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:35:07 +0200, Peter Knutsen

Post by Peter Knutsen

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by John Rudd
But, the idea that it has to be done by full, transparent, objective
disclosure up front is pure hogwash.

Peter didn't actually say you *had* to do that, he said it was a good
way to empower a potential player. If you don't want to empower your
players, that's fine.

Just to clarify, I do not hold the opinion that it is okay for
GMs to not empower their players. I hold the opinion that GMs
who do not want to empower their players - in fact even GMs who
merely don't go out of their way to empower their players -
should get the fuck out from behind the GM's screen, and start
doing something else.

Yeah, but you're a nut.

[David Meadows]

Post by Peter Knutsen
I hold the opinion that GMs
who do not want to empower their players - in fact even GMs who
merely don't go out of their way to empower their players -
should get the fuck out from behind the GM's screen, and start
doing something else.

In a group with empowered players, you presumably do not have a GM's screen?

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by David Meadows

Post by Peter Knutsen
I hold the opinion that GMs
who do not want to empower their players - in fact even GMs who
merely don't go out of their way to empower their players -
should get the fuck out from behind the GM's screen, and start
doing something else.

In a group with empowered players, you presumably do not have a GM's screen?

No, the screen is to prevent the GM from seeing the players' rolls.

[David Meadows]

Post by David Meadows

Post by David Meadows

Post by Peter Knutsen
I hold the opinion that GMs
who do not want to empower their players - in fact even GMs who
merely don't go out of their way to empower their players -
should get the fuck out from behind the GM's screen, and start
doing something else.

In a group with empowered players, you presumably do not have a GM's

screen?
No, the screen is to prevent the GM from seeing the players' rolls.

Of course. Silly me.

[forumite]

Post by Peter Knutsen

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by John Rudd
But, the idea that it has to be done by full, transparent, objective
disclosure up front is pure hogwash.

Peter didn't actually say you *had* to do that, he said it was a good
way to empower a potential player. If you don't want to empower your
players, that's fine.

Just to clarify, I do not hold the opinion that it is okay for
GMs to not empower their players. I hold the opinion that GMs
who do not want to empower their players - in fact even GMs who
merely don't go out of their way to empower their players -
should get the fuck out from behind the GM's screen, and start
doing something else.

I agree with you, I think. I can accept something happening in the
campaign the party doesn't understand but eventually the party should
learn about it as that's part of the campaign plot. For example, last
campaign I was in, anyone attempting to Teleport provided a percentage
chance a demon or devil would pop in. Didn't know why. Crippled
magical travel. It was there a very long time in the campaign.
Eventually we learned why and attempted to fix things, but then the
campaign broke off due to unrelated matters. We have new characters
now for the campaign several years later. The teleportation "problem"
was fixed, indirectly by our former party.

However, I would object that player characters are forever dumbfounded
and ignorant of the world and are thus at the mercy of whatever whimsy
the GM feels like. It's why I don't play games like Paranoia, Call Of
Cthulu, or Ravenloft. In the example given elsewhere int his thread,
I would object if all of a suddent those great werewolves can suddenly
Passwall through my wall of stone just because I decided to cast it.

Gerald Katz

[Dan Childers]

Post by forumite
However, I would object that player characters are forever dumbfounded
and ignorant of the world and are thus at the mercy of whatever whimsy
the GM feels like. It's why I don't play games like Paranoia, Call Of
Cthulu, or Ravenloft. In the example given elsewhere int his thread,
I would object if all of a suddent those great werewolves can suddenly
Passwall through my wall of stone just because I decided to cast it.

The popularity of the three games you mention refutes
the thesis that the "empowerment" being talked about
is an absolute requirement.

[forumite]

Post by Dan Childers

Post by forumite
However, I would object that player characters are forever dumbfounded
and ignorant of the world and are thus at the mercy of whatever whimsy
the GM feels like. It's why I don't play games like Paranoia, Call Of
Cthulu, or Ravenloft. In the example given elsewhere int his thread,
I would object if all of a suddent those great werewolves can suddenly
Passwall through my wall of stone just because I decided to cast it.

The popularity of the three games you mention refutes
the thesis that the "empowerment" being talked about
is an absolute requirement.

Point, though I'm not taking that side, per se. It's more a comment
of my playing preference. Perhaps it's best I state to remove
implication at least that I totally agree with Peter in that certain
GMs should never be one. I'm willing to just let it go that I
wouldn't play with those certain GMs. If they wouldn't want me in
their games then it's mutual beneficial.

Redefine those certain GMs to mean GMs who don't like player
characters to be able to do nifty things, be good at something, be
"powerful", and things of that nature.

Disappointment on my part for not playing a game is better than simply
not having fun playing the game. I've learned that from experience.
I just hope I would find GMs where I could enjoy their style of play.
I am fortunate to be currently playing in such a game.

Gerald Katz

[Dan Childers]

Post by forumite

Post by Dan Childers

Post by forumite
However, I would object that player characters are forever dumbfounded
and ignorant of the world and are thus at the mercy of whatever whimsy
the GM feels like. It's why I don't play games like Paranoia, Call Of
Cthulu, or Ravenloft. In the example given elsewhere int his thread,
I would object if all of a suddent those great werewolves can suddenly
Passwall through my wall of stone just because I decided to cast it.

The popularity of the three games you mention refutes
the thesis that the "empowerment" being talked about
is an absolute requirement.

Point, though I'm not taking that side, per se. It's more a comment
of my playing preference. Perhaps it's best I state to remove
implication at least that I totally agree with Peter in that certain
GMs should never be one. I'm willing to just let it go that I
wouldn't play with those certain GMs. If they wouldn't want me in
their games then it's mutual beneficial.
Redefine those certain GMs to mean GMs who don't like player
characters to be able to do nifty things, be good at something, be
"powerful", and things of that nature.
Disappointment on my part for not playing a game is better than simply
not having fun playing the game. I've learned that from experience.
I just hope I would find GMs where I could enjoy their style of play.
I am fortunate to be currently playing in such a game.

An entirely different argument from "such games should
not exist". And an irrefutable one--you know your
tastes better than me! :-)

Not even an unreasonable preference--I tend to
prefer playing a fairly powerful character myself.
(Though I find the best way to hog spotlight is
usually to play the brainiac professor or charisma
munchkin--most of the rest of the players will
be set up to handle the gun bunny stuff. :-)

Though it can be fun playing something like
Toon or Paranoia where the pressure's off because
you're going to die *anyway*, so you can quit
worrying about optimal tactics. And some games
end up different when you are playing a normal
Joe--having to think about how to run and hide
from the zombies, because for a change you can't
just grab a hockey stick and open the same old can
of whoopass on them like you do in all the other
campaigns.

[David Johnston]

Post by Dan Childers

Post by forumite

Post by Dan Childers

Post by forumite
However, I would object that player characters are forever dumbfounded
and ignorant of the world and are thus at the mercy of whatever whimsy
the GM feels like. It's why I don't play games like Paranoia, Call Of
Cthulu, or Ravenloft. In the example given elsewhere int his thread,
I would object if all of a suddent those great werewolves can suddenly
Passwall through my wall of stone just because I decided to cast it.

The popularity of the three games you mention refutes
the thesis that the "empowerment" being talked about
is an absolute requirement.

Point, though I'm not taking that side, per se. It's more a comment
of my playing preference. Perhaps it's best I state to remove
implication at least that I totally agree with Peter in that certain
GMs should never be one. I'm willing to just let it go that I
wouldn't play with those certain GMs. If they wouldn't want me in
their games then it's mutual beneficial.
Redefine those certain GMs to mean GMs who don't like player
characters to be able to do nifty things, be good at something, be
"powerful", and things of that nature.
Disappointment on my part for not playing a game is better than simply
not having fun playing the game. I've learned that from experience.
I just hope I would find GMs where I could enjoy their style of play.
I am fortunate to be currently playing in such a game.

An entirely different argument from "such games should
not exist". And an irrefutable one--you know your
tastes better than me! :-)
Not even an unreasonable preference--I tend to
prefer playing a fairly powerful character myself.

Of course what was being discussed was not empowering
characters, but empowering _players_. A character may
be virtually powerless while the player has an enormous
ability to say what goes on in the game or vice versa.

[forumite]

Post by David Johnston
Of course what was being discussed was not empowering
characters, but empowering _players_. A character may
be virtually powerless while the player has an enormous
ability to say what goes on in the game or vice versa.

Not all the time, but sometimes that is mutual. I don't have a
problem with only the GM making the rules to be used as long as the
rules allow for me to make a "competent" character who can do nifty
things, and I don't get punished for it by not being able to use them.
I naturally do tend to like a GM more who allows me introduce
something new to the game he hadn't originally planned on. I accept
his perogerative to say "no". For example, I will forever be greatful
to the GM who allowed me to experiment playing a lawful good undead
skeleton cleric (2E). The idea was that evil always tries to corrupt
good. Here's a character of good corrupting evil. Now, had he
declined I would have accepted it and played something else, but the
fact that even though he did not like my first proposal on how to work
with such a character in terms of game mechanics but was willing to
work with me to make it work in his game and finally we reached a
breakthrough, that means a lot to me. That's the kind of GM I really
enjoy playing with, a GM who allows players to contribute to his
world. Even if I must accept GM's accepted rules only and cannot use
anything from game books not approved, learned here, make on my own,
etc., as long as my character can "do stuff", have an effect on the
world, and not simply forever be a pawn to all powerful all knowing
NPCs, then I'm happy.

Gerald Katz

[Peter Knutsen]

Dan Childers wrote:
[...]

Post by Dan Childers
Though it can be fun playing something like
Toon or Paranoia where the pressure's off because
you're going to die *anyway*, so you can quit
worrying about optimal tactics. And some games

[...]

I thought this was a discussion of roleplaying gaming????

[First Prophet of Kaos]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:46:45 +0200, Peter Knutsen

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by Dan Childers
Though it can be fun playing something like
Toon or Paranoia where the pressure's off because
you're going to die *anyway*, so you can quit
worrying about optimal tactics. And some games

[...]
I thought this was a discussion of roleplaying gaming????

Yes.
You somehow forgot the last part, just as many seem to forget the
first part.

[David Johnston]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:46:45 +0200, Peter Knutsen

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by Dan Childers
Though it can be fun playing something like
Toon or Paranoia where the pressure's off because
you're going to die *anyway*, so you can quit
worrying about optimal tactics. And some games

[...]
I thought this was a discussion of roleplaying gaming????

So it is. Do you think Wile Coyote isn't a role?

[Matt Frisch]

Post by First Prophet of Kaos
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:46:45 +0200, Peter Knutsen

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by Dan Childers
Though it can be fun playing something like
Toon or Paranoia where the pressure's off because
you're going to die *anyway*, so you can quit
worrying about optimal tactics. And some games

[...]
I thought this was a discussion of roleplaying gaming????

So it is. Do you think Wile Coyote isn't a role?

Nit: Wile E. Coyote

Super-genius.

[Dan Childers]

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by Dan Childers
Though it can be fun playing something like
Toon or Paranoia where the pressure's off because
you're going to die *anyway*, so you can quit
worrying about optimal tactics. And some games

[...]
I thought this was a discussion of roleplaying gaming????

Exactly.

Especially as opposed to tactical wargaming.

[Peter Knutsen]

Post by Dan Childers

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by Dan Childers
Though it can be fun playing something like
Toon or Paranoia where the pressure's off because
you're going to die *anyway*, so you can quit
worrying about optimal tactics. And some games

[...]
I thought this was a discussion of roleplaying gaming????

Exactly.

You sure sound as if you are playing a board game.

Post by Dan Childers
Especially as opposed to tactical wargaming.

[Dan Childers]

Post by Peter Knutsen

Post by Dan Childers

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by Dan Childers
Though it can be fun playing something like
Toon or Paranoia where the pressure's off because
you're going to die *anyway*, so you can quit
worrying about optimal tactics. And some games

[...]
I thought this was a discussion of roleplaying gaming????

Exactly.

You sure sound as if you are playing a board game.

Post by Dan Childers
Especially as opposed to tactical wargaming.

Huh? I'm talking about enjoying a game because
I *don't* have to worry about optimal tactics
or character optimization, and that makes it
not role-playing?

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Dan Childers
Huh? I'm talking about enjoying a game because
I *don't* have to worry about optimal tactics
or character optimization, and that makes it
not role-playing?

You are not roleplaying anything recognizable as human in
Paranoia, or indeed comprehensible in a reasonable way. The world of
Paranoia isn't possible -- not just physically, but psychologically.

If you're playing Paranoia, you're doing slapstick, which isn't
roleplaying.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Sea Wasp
If you're playing Paranoia, you're doing slapstick, which isn't
roleplaying.

Says you.

[Ophidian]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Sea Wasp
If you're playing Paranoia, you're doing slapstick, which isn't
roleplaying.

Says you.

It's roleplaying, at least in the sense that Tic Tac Toe is strategy.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Ophidian

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Sea Wasp
If you're playing Paranoia, you're doing slapstick, which isn't
roleplaying.

Says you.

It's roleplaying, at least in the sense that Tic Tac Toe is strategy.

If you think that analogy is valid, you don't understand at least two of
the relevant terms.

[Ophidian]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Ophidian

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Sea Wasp
If you're playing Paranoia, you're doing slapstick, which isn't

roleplaying.

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Ophidian

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
Says you.

It's roleplaying, at least in the sense that Tic Tac Toe is strategy.

If you think that analogy is valid, you don't understand at least two

of the relevant terms.


There are no good analogies.
But are sure you understand the antecedents?

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Sea Wasp
If you're playing Paranoia, you're doing slapstick, which isn't
roleplaying.

Says you.

Indeed. You aren't playing a character; you are attempting to make
funny events happen, even though from the PoV of even Paranoia
characters, they would not be motivated to do these "funny" things; if
you were playing people in the Paranoia world the tone of the game,
and many actions, would be different (until the whole juryrigged
contraption collapsed).

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Sea Wasp
If you're playing Paranoia, you're doing slapstick, which isn't
roleplaying.

Says you.

Indeed. You aren't playing a character; you are attempting to make
funny events happen,

Says you.

[Firelock]

Post by Sea Wasp
Indeed. You aren't playing a character; you are attempting to make
funny events happen, even though from the PoV of even Paranoia
characters, they would not be motivated to do these "funny" things; if
you were playing people in the Paranoia world the tone of the game,
and many actions, would be different (until the whole juryrigged
contraption collapsed).

I didn't really see any motivation in Paranoia for the players
to have their characters make funny events happen - as I saw
Paranoia, the characters were all there to be targets for dark
slapstick humor on the part of the gamemaster. At most, the
players had some motivation to try and direct some of the craprain
elsewhere, and *that* could be funny, but Paranoia seemed mainly
written for the entertainment of the GM.

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet

[Arthur Boff]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:12:30 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Dan Childers
Huh? I'm talking about enjoying a game because
I *don't* have to worry about optimal tactics
or character optimization, and that makes it
not role-playing?

You are not roleplaying anything recognizable as human in
Paranoia, or indeed comprehensible in a reasonable way. The world of
Paranoia isn't possible -- not just physically, but psychologically.

You're kidding, right?

Even in the "Straight/Classic" setup they describe in Paranoia XP? (As
opposed to the "Zap" variant most Paranoia conversations seem to be
about.)

Stalinist Russia was a pretty damn insane society. North Korea, from
what we know of it, even more so. They still exist.

--
To determine the number of births per pregancy, collect several
ten-sided dice, roll 1d10,000,000 and consult below...
- FATAL.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Arthur Boff
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:12:30 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Dan Childers
Huh? I'm talking about enjoying a game because
I *don't* have to worry about optimal tactics
or character optimization, and that makes it
not role-playing?

You are not roleplaying anything recognizable as human in
Paranoia, or indeed comprehensible in a reasonable way. The world of
Paranoia isn't possible -- not just physically, but psychologically.

You're kidding, right?
Even in the "Straight/Classic" setup they describe in Paranoia XP? (As
opposed to the "Zap" variant most Paranoia conversations seem to be
about.)

I dunno from "Paranoia XP". I'm talking about the lunacies from the
Paranoia game I have seen and played before. The one with a random
lunatic Computer controlling everything, some uncountable number of
conspiracies, multiple identical clones for replacements when your
character dies, etc.

[Arthur Boff]

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:35:34 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
Even in the "Straight/Classic" setup they describe in Paranoia XP? (As
opposed to the "Zap" variant most Paranoia conversations seem to be
about.)

I dunno from "Paranoia XP". I'm talking about the lunacies from the
Paranoia game I have seen and played before. The one with a random
lunatic Computer controlling everything, some uncountable number of
conspiracies, multiple identical clones for replacements when your
character dies, etc.

Paranoia XP is the latest edition of that. The three styles described
in it are Straight (very heavy on the satire, very low on the crap
puns), Classic (more slapstick in nature) and Zap (running around
shooting each other for no good reason).

Straight is supposed to be just-about-plausible, Zap isn't plausible
at all, Classic wavers between the two depending on just how many puns
and jokes the GM is inclined to throw in.

--
I have fallen asleep and someone has stolen my face! I am a hideous
monster!!!
- Pokey the Penguin.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Arthur Boff
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:35:34 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
Even in the "Straight/Classic" setup they describe in Paranoia XP? (As
opposed to the "Zap" variant most Paranoia conversations seem to be
about.)

I dunno from "Paranoia XP". I'm talking about the lunacies from the
Paranoia game I have seen and played before. The one with a random
lunatic Computer controlling everything, some uncountable number of
conspiracies, multiple identical clones for replacements when your
character dies, etc.

Paranoia XP is the latest edition of that. The three styles described
in it are Straight (very heavy on the satire, very low on the crap
puns), Classic (more slapstick in nature) and Zap (running around
shooting each other for no good reason).

Unless the elements I described above are very much different, the
setting would not be able to EXIST (for more than a few years) and
still have recognizable human beings for characters; the characters
would have to be drastically modified humans to have Alpha Complex
remain functional for very long.

[Arthur Boff]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 10:57:16 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp
Unless the elements I described above are very much different, the
setting would not be able to EXIST (for more than a few years) and
still have recognizable human beings for characters; the characters
would have to be drastically modified humans to have Alpha Complex
remain functional for very long.

Given that all the human beings in Alpha Complex are cloned in vats
from genetic templates that are frequently tinkered with for both
legal and treasonous reasons, and are raised from birth on a heavy
diet of propaganda, behaviour-modifying drugs, brainwashing, and
intimidation, I think they qualify as "drastically modified humans".
:)

Again: as originally designed, Alpha Complex really wasn't that much
different from Stalinist Russia.

--
You will live badly, but not for long.
- President Lukashenko of Belarus, addressing his people.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Arthur Boff
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 10:57:16 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp
Unless the elements I described above are very much different, the
setting would not be able to EXIST (for more than a few years) and
still have recognizable human beings for characters; the characters
would have to be drastically modified humans to have Alpha Complex
remain functional for very long.

Given that all the human beings in Alpha Complex are cloned in vats
from genetic templates that are frequently tinkered with for both
legal and treasonous reasons, and are raised from birth on a heavy
diet of propaganda, behaviour-modifying drugs, brainwashing, and
intimidation, I think they qualify as "drastically modified humans".
:)

Which pretty much limits "roleplaying" to "being the butt of satiric
jokes".

Post by Arthur Boff
Again: as originally designed, Alpha Complex really wasn't that much
different from Stalinist Russia.

Which lasted how long? A very few years compared to the implied
lifespan of Alpha.

[Arthur Boff]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:51:47 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 10:57:16 GMT, Sea Wasp
Given that all the human beings in Alpha Complex are cloned in vats
from genetic templates that are frequently tinkered with for both
legal and treasonous reasons, and are raised from birth on a heavy
diet of propaganda, behaviour-modifying drugs, brainwashing, and
intimidation, I think they qualify as "drastically modified humans".
:)

Which pretty much limits "roleplaying" to "being the butt of satiric
jokes".

You're right. There's no character development in Catch-22, or Animal
Farm, or Brazil, or Logan's Run...

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
Again: as originally designed, Alpha Complex really wasn't that much
different from Stalinist Russia.

Which lasted how long? A very few years compared to the implied
lifespan of Alpha.

On the flip side, North Korea's been going strong for 50-odd years
with a very similar setup. And Alpha has the advantage of having a
lack of external pressures except from the odd scattered primitive
tribe and other Alpha Complexes (which, naturally, are similarly
messed up).

--
I'm not calling the ambulance this time.
- Jerkcity.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Arthur Boff
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:51:47 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 10:57:16 GMT, Sea Wasp
Given that all the human beings in Alpha Complex are cloned in vats
from genetic templates that are frequently tinkered with for both
legal and treasonous reasons, and are raised from birth on a heavy
diet of propaganda, behaviour-modifying drugs, brainwashing, and
intimidation, I think they qualify as "drastically modified humans".
:)

Which pretty much limits "roleplaying" to "being the butt of satiric
jokes".

You're right. There's no character development in Catch-22, or Animal
Farm,

Neither is even vaguely equivalent.

or Brazil, or Logan's Run...
Logan's Run has some comparison, except that the society they are in
is not OBVIOUSLY dysfunctional in the many ways that Paranoia is.
Rebellion and escape can happen effectively. It's not a funhouse run
by a sadist.

Note that it, also, isn't a very well-designed alternate world and
doesn't make sense in a number of other areas.

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
Again: as originally designed, Alpha Complex really wasn't that much
different from Stalinist Russia.

Which lasted how long? A very few years compared to the implied
lifespan of Alpha.

On the flip side, North Korea's been going strong for 50-odd years
with a very similar setup.

Not even vaguely close to Paranoia. Paranoia is filled with things
that are just STUPID -- not stupid-as-in-government, but
stupid-as-in-dumb-joke. The Revolution would have happened YEARS
before, and The Computer would be burning wreckage.

Note that 50 years is still much less than the implied length of time
for Alpha. It's been around long enough for no one (apparently not
even the Computer) to remember what really happened.

[Arthur Boff]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:34:48 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:51:47 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp
Which pretty much limits "roleplaying" to "being the butt of satiric
jokes".

You're right. There's no character development in Catch-22, or Animal
Farm,

Neither is even vaguely equivalent.

Given that both Heller and Orwell are frequently cited as inspirations
for Paranoia - especially for the "Straight" style of running the game
- they're relevant.

Post by Sea Wasp
or Brazil, or Logan's Run...
Logan's Run has some comparison, except that the society they are in
is not OBVIOUSLY dysfunctional in the many ways that Paranoia is.
Rebellion and escape can happen effectively. It's not a funhouse run
by a sadist.

Again, we've slipped into talking exclusively about the "Zap" style of
running Paranoia, which most Paranoia conversations seem to gravitate
to - especially with people who aren't acquainted with the best the
game has to offer. (This is very much the fault of West End Games
rather than yourself - by the way - Paranoia has suffered for
literally years from having supplements and adventures written by
people who don't actually get the joke, or aren't clever enough to do
interesting things with the setting, and that's distorted people's
views of Paranoia to varying extents.)

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
Again: as originally designed, Alpha Complex really wasn't that much
different from Stalinist Russia.

Which lasted how long? A very few years compared to the implied
lifespan of Alpha.

On the flip side, North Korea's been going strong for 50-odd years
with a very similar setup.

Not even vaguely close to Paranoia. Paranoia is filled with things
that are just STUPID -- not stupid-as-in-government, but
stupid-as-in-dumb-joke. The Revolution would have happened YEARS
before, and The Computer would be burning wreckage.
Note that 50 years is still much less than the implied length of time
for Alpha. It's been around long enough for no one (apparently not
even the Computer) to remember what really happened.

214 years in the current edition. So 50 years is 25% of the way there.

It's strongly implied that the High Programmers have a fair idea of
the real history, but the rest of the populace is lied to from birth
and the Programmers can decide what the Computer believes at the touch
of a button.

Come on, remember the Ministry of Truth in 1984? It need take only 1
generation for a propaganda lie to become a universally-accepted
truth. Less than that, if you just kill all the humans who remember
the old days and replace them with vatgrown clones from your databank
of genetic templates.

It's a flawed point, anyhow: there's a secret society in Paranoia
*devoted* to hoarding scraps of historical knowledge from the Old
Reckoning.

--
Science kind of takes the fun out of the portent business.
- Calvin and Hobbes.

[Dan Childers]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:51:47 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 10:57:16 GMT, Sea Wasp
Given that all the human beings in Alpha Complex are cloned in vats
from genetic templates that are frequently tinkered with for both
legal and treasonous reasons, and are raised from birth on a heavy
diet of propaganda, behaviour-modifying drugs, brainwashing, and
intimidation, I think they qualify as "drastically modified humans".
:)

Which pretty much limits "roleplaying" to "being the butt of satiric
jokes".

You're right. There's no character development in Catch-22, or Animal
Farm,

Neither is even vaguely equivalent.
or Brazil, or Logan's Run...
Logan's Run has some comparison, except that the society they are in
is not OBVIOUSLY dysfunctional in the many ways that Paranoia is.
Rebellion and escape can happen effectively. It's not a funhouse run
by a sadist.
Note that it, also, isn't a very well-designed alternate world and
doesn't make sense in a number of other areas.

It is supposed to be satire, not a realistic extrapolation.

Of course, this realism requirement would make most D&D
"not-roleplaying" as well. Realistically, if Fireball
and Teleport spells were that easy to get, nobody would
bother with castles. This is more important from a
Simulationist perspective than from other perspectives.

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
Again: as originally designed, Alpha Complex really wasn't that much
different from Stalinist Russia.

Which lasted how long? A very few years compared to the implied
lifespan of Alpha.

On the flip side, North Korea's been going strong for 50-odd years
with a very similar setup.

Not even vaguely close to Paranoia. Paranoia is filled with things
that are just STUPID -- not stupid-as-in-government, but
stupid-as-in-dumb-joke. The Revolution would have happened YEARS
before, and The Computer would be burning wreckage.
Note that 50 years is still much less than the implied length of time
for Alpha. It's been around long enough for no one (apparently not
even the Computer) to remember what really happened.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Dan Childers
Of course, this realism requirement would make most D&D
"not-roleplaying" as well. Realistically, if Fireball
and Teleport spells were that easy to get, nobody would
bother with castles.

Um, why?

This is like saying no one would bother with armor now that you have
armor-piercing weapons. You still have armor because not EVERYONE uses
AP weapons. You just start developing defenses against the AP weapons,
too.

Similarly, you'd still have castles, or some knd of fortifications,
to defend against mundane attack, and you'd work out other methods for
eliminating teleport as a threat. (Fireball isn't that much of a
threat to a large stone castle. Disintegrate, how, that's a problem).

[Dan Childers]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:12:30 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Dan Childers
Huh? I'm talking about enjoying a game because
I *don't* have to worry about optimal tactics
or character optimization, and that makes it
not role-playing?

You are not roleplaying anything recognizable as human in
Paranoia, or indeed comprehensible in a reasonable way. The world of
Paranoia isn't possible -- not just physically, but psychologically.

You're kidding, right?
Even in the "Straight/Classic" setup they describe in Paranoia XP? (As
opposed to the "Zap" variant most Paranoia conversations seem to be
about.)

I dunno from "Paranoia XP". I'm talking about the lunacies from the
Paranoia game I have seen and played before. The one with a random
lunatic Computer controlling everything, some uncountable number of
conspiracies, multiple identical clones for replacements when your
character dies, etc.

I might add that I was also referring to Call of Cthulhu,
as another example of a game where you don't have to
worry as much about making your characters point-efficient,
because expected survival rates are low enough that
denerfing your character doesn't improve your chances much.
So, perversely, I find that I can relax and take fun things
for the character instead of efficient things. That any
minmaxers I'm playing with get less chance to gloat about
how their character is 15% more powerful than everyone
else's can make for a nice change too.

Oddly, I found that this works for White Wolf's Werewolf
game too--even a poorly-designed, non-optimized garou
is still mighty buff in Crinos form. Even in a combat-heavy
game like most Werewolf games are, I can still put less
than 5 dots in Strength and Brawl without "crippling"
the character. (IE, making it noticeably less powerful
than the minmaxed characters.)

Frankly, I find games where players worry intensely about
designing their characters as efficiently as possible, and
complain about being "nerfed" if their character is less
amazingly powerful in combat than they could be, to be
less roleplaying-like than a humerous satirical game.
I mean, some people do Hero or Gurps character design like
they were playing Car Wars--"Hmm, if I take 1 point less
armor there, I can mount another linked machine gun..."

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Dan Childers

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Arthur Boff
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:12:30 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Dan Childers
Huh? I'm talking about enjoying a game because
I *don't* have to worry about optimal tactics
or character optimization, and that makes it
not role-playing?

You are not roleplaying anything recognizable as human in
Paranoia, or indeed comprehensible in a reasonable way. The world of
Paranoia isn't possible -- not just physically, but psychologically.

You're kidding, right?
Even in the "Straight/Classic" setup they describe in Paranoia XP? (As
opposed to the "Zap" variant most Paranoia conversations seem to be
about.)

I dunno from "Paranoia XP". I'm talking about the lunacies from the
Paranoia game I have seen and played before. The one with a random
lunatic Computer controlling everything, some uncountable number of
conspiracies, multiple identical clones for replacements when your
character dies, etc.

I might add that I was also referring to Call of Cthulhu,
as another example of a game where you don't have to
worry as much about making your characters point-efficient,
because expected survival rates are low enough that
denerfing your character doesn't improve your chances much.
So, perversely, I find that I can relax and take fun things
for the character instead of efficient things.

I just take efficient things that are fun for the character and
improve his chances to do whatever it is that the character does. If
he's not a combat monster, I make sure that he's not wasting time
trying to imitate one.

In CoC, I just don't play if the standard CoC/Ravenloftian "You Just
Can't Win" meme is in effect. I play for escapism, not failure, doom,
injustice, and frustration.

[Arthur Boff]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:46:45 +0200, Peter Knutsen

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by Dan Childers
Though it can be fun playing something like
Toon or Paranoia where the pressure's off because
you're going to die *anyway*, so you can quit
worrying about optimal tactics. And some games

[...]
I thought this was a discussion of roleplaying gaming????

It's not astonishingly out-of-character for PCs in games where
character death *isn't* absolutely certain or a mere inconvenience to
try their best to avoid dying...

--
GREASE is a tripartite assemblage of business principles for success.
The three principles that comprise GREASE are as follows! Generate
Revenue! Embezzle Assets! Sudden Exit! GREASE!
- Pokey the Penguin.

[Arthur Boff]

Post by forumite
Redefine those certain GMs to mean GMs who don't like player
characters to be able to do nifty things, be good at something, be
"powerful", and things of that nature.

Ah, you mean the ones who think "game balance" means making all the
player characters equally crippled? ;) It's a school of thought I've
encountered before.

--
Okay people the Apollo 13 is broken again. Someone get out and push.
- Jerkcity.

[forumite]

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by forumite
Redefine those certain GMs to mean GMs who don't like player
characters to be able to do nifty things, be good at something, be
"powerful", and things of that nature.

Ah, you mean the ones who think "game balance" means making all the
player characters equally crippled? ;) It's a school of thought I've
encountered before.

Hahaha. Yep, that too.

Gerald Katz

[Peter Knutsen]

Post by forumite

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by forumite
Redefine those certain GMs to mean GMs who don't like player
characters to be able to do nifty things, be good at something, be
"powerful", and things of that nature.

Ah, you mean the ones who think "game balance" means making all the
player characters equally crippled? ;) It's a school of thought I've
encountered before.

Hahaha. Yep, that too.

The worst part is, unless the players dare to speak up, a GM
of that style will never realize that he is making a
mistake, because whenever *he* wants the PCs to accomplish
something, he can just fudge things so that the PCs manage
whatever-it-is in spite of their low game-mechanical abilities.

In this way, it is entirely possible for a GM of this
perverted (albeit very common, sadly) style to GM a campaign
in which the PCs accomplish great things.

They just have to be things that the GM wants accomplished,
as opposed to things that the characters themselves might
wish to accomplish.

[Arthur Boff]

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 18:51:41 +0200, Peter Knutsen

Post by Peter Knutsen
The worst part is, unless the players dare to speak up, a GM
of that style will never realize that he is making a
mistake, because whenever *he* wants the PCs to accomplish
something, he can just fudge things so that the PCs manage
whatever-it-is in spite of their low game-mechanical abilities.

*nods vigorously*

Post by Peter Knutsen
In this way, it is entirely possible for a GM of this
perverted (albeit very common, sadly) style to GM a campaign
in which the PCs accomplish great things.

"Perverted" is the wrong word. There's nothing inherently wrong with
this playing style so long as all the players are willing to run with
it. My main problems with it stem from campaigns where the GMs failed
to let the players know that this was the way the game was going to be
run (or, in the worst case I've been involved in, actively implied
that the PCs would be the most powerful entities in the world and that
most of the game would be devoted to their rivalries and intrigues
before wheeling out a bunch of Even More Most Powerful Entities).

Post by Peter Knutsen
They just have to be things that the GM wants accomplished,
as opposed to things that the characters themselves might
wish to accomplish.

The "perverted" thing aside, this is possibly the most sensible post
I've seen you make. :)

--
You lied about Dr Who being in your pants pocket.
- Jerkcity.

[Brandon Cope]

Post by Peter Knutsen

Post by forumite

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by forumite
Redefine those certain GMs to mean GMs who don't like player
characters to be able to do nifty things, be good at something, be
"powerful", and things of that nature.

Ah, you mean the ones who think "game balance" means making all the
player characters equally crippled? ;) It's a school of thought I've
encountered before.

Hahaha. Yep, that too.

The worst part is, unless the players dare to speak up, a GM
of that style will never realize that he is making a
mistake, because whenever *he* wants the PCs to accomplish
something, he can just fudge things so that the PCs manage
whatever-it-is in spite of their low game-mechanical abilities.

You wouldn't consider that a GM would set the difficulty of the goals
to the PC's abilities, would you?

Post by Peter Knutsen
In this way, it is entirely possible for a GM of this
perverted (albeit very common, sadly) style to GM a campaign
in which the PCs accomplish great things.

Depending on the genre, that may be appropriate.

Post by Peter Knutsen
They just have to be things that the GM wants accomplished,
as opposed to things that the characters themselves might
wish to accomplish.

So a GM would would fudge for the first would never fudge for the
second?

Brandon

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by Peter Knutsen

Post by forumite

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by forumite
Redefine those certain GMs to mean GMs who don't like player
characters to be able to do nifty things, be good at something, be
"powerful", and things of that nature.

Ah, you mean the ones who think "game balance" means making all the
player characters equally crippled? ;) It's a school of thought I've
encountered before.

Hahaha. Yep, that too.

The worst part is, unless the players dare to speak up, a GM
of that style will never realize that he is making a
mistake, because whenever *he* wants the PCs to accomplish
something, he can just fudge things so that the PCs manage
whatever-it-is in spite of their low game-mechanical abilities.

You wouldn't consider that a GM would set the difficulty of the goals
to the PC's abilities, would you?

That's not the style Peter is talking about. And actually, that's
anathema to Peter too, but for slightly different reasons. So no, he
probably didn't consider it, but nor should he have.

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by Peter Knutsen
In this way, it is entirely possible for a GM of this
perverted (albeit very common, sadly) style to GM a campaign
in which the PCs accomplish great things.

Depending on the genre, that may be appropriate.

Post by Peter Knutsen
They just have to be things that the GM wants accomplished,
as opposed to things that the characters themselves might
wish to accomplish.

So a GM would would fudge for the first would never fudge for the
second?

The particular ones he's talking about wouldn't, no. And it *is* a style
that's out there, quite a bit of it actually.

There may be other GMs who would do both; that's not particularly
relevant to the conversation, as they were not the ones being discussed,
and their existence doesn't disprove anything Peter said.

[David Johnston]

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by Peter Knutsen

Post by forumite

Post by Arthur Boff

Post by forumite
Redefine those certain GMs to mean GMs who don't like player
characters to be able to do nifty things, be good at something, be
"powerful", and things of that nature.

Ah, you mean the ones who think "game balance" means making all the
player characters equally crippled? ;) It's a school of thought I've
encountered before.

Hahaha. Yep, that too.

The worst part is, unless the players dare to speak up, a GM
of that style will never realize that he is making a
mistake, because whenever *he* wants the PCs to accomplish
something, he can just fudge things so that the PCs manage
whatever-it-is in spite of their low game-mechanical abilities.

You wouldn't consider that a GM would set the difficulty of the goals
to the PC's abilities, would you?

I believe that's what he just said,

[Brandon Cope]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by Peter Knutsen
The worst part is, unless the players dare to speak up, a GM
of that style will never realize that he is making a
mistake, because whenever *he* wants the PCs to accomplish
something, he can just fudge things so that the PCs manage
whatever-it-is in spite of their low game-mechanical abilities.

You wouldn't consider that a GM would set the difficulty of the goals
to the PC's abilities, would you?

I believe that's what he just said,

No, it isn't.

Brandon

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Peter Knutsen

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by John Rudd
But, the idea that it has to be done by full, transparent, objective
disclosure up front is pure hogwash.

Peter didn't actually say you *had* to do that, he said it was a good
way to empower a potential player. If you don't want to empower your
players, that's fine.

Just to clarify, I do not hold the opinion that it is okay for
GMs to not empower their players.

I haven't taken the feat.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Peter Knutsen, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Peter Knutsen
The most powerful decision a player can make, *ever*, is whether
or not to consent to play in the campaign that the GM is offering.
Therefore, the offering of much information, including full
disclosure of the highly transparent and objective rules that
will be used during the campaign, is the first and most
important way in which a GM can empower a potential player.

While I think these things are both largely true, what the "therefore"
is doing there is a complete mystery to me. The second part presupposes
that the first has already been dealt with, given that which rules are
being used is, for most potential players, one of the *least* important
factors in whether they choose to participate in a given game.

The rules and the extent to which they've been disclosed certainly
influence how much power those players *who choose to participate in the
first place* can bring to bear, and what techniques they can most
readily use to do so. But even there, the effect is less than you might
think; many players keep *themselves* largely in the dark about the
rules, due to lack of time or, frankly, laziness, and their eyes tend to
sort of glaze over at any extensive discussion of rules issues. I don't
understand this mentality myself, but I see it in the majority of the
players I've had over the years. Your principles are only applicable to
those players who are *not* like this, who, while not exactly rare, are
by no means in the majority.

[Marc L.]

Post by Silveraxe
So if you wake up grumpy one morning, suddenly things fall
upwards, strength and dexterity are no longer the key stats for
physical combat and every NPC has a dozen levels in the PC-killer
class?

Such a strawman does not belong in an intelligent debate.

[David Alex Lamb]

Post by Marc L.

Post by Silveraxe
So if you wake up grumpy one morning, suddenly things fall
upwards, strength and dexterity are no longer the key stats for
physical combat and every NPC has a dozen levels in the PC-killer
class?

Such a strawman does not belong in an intelligent debate.

I dunno - I found it a mildly humorous way to make a point.

[Marc L.]

Post by David Alex Lamb
I dunno - I found it a mildly humorous way to make a point.

To me, the post failed to make a point by its very stupidity.

[Arthur Boff]

To be honest, I think the main reason to reject the "GM is God" myth
is that it can never be the case, since GM omniscience is impossible.

Even if you know all the PCs' and NPCs' statistics, secrets, actions,
motives and so forth, you will never know exactly how your game looks
from a player's-eye-view. You can get a vague idea by listening
carefully to the feedback your players give you, but you'll never know
what your gameworld looks like to someone who's only read the blurb
you've made publicly available.

Hence, "The GM is always right" problem falls over immediately. It's
entirely possible for a GM to be wrong. For example, you could set up
a mystery in the gameworld that seems to have an obvious solution to
you, but you don't realise how difficult it is to guess for players
who don't know what you know about the gameworld (and may have jumped
to some false conclusions along the way).

--
I don't bring God into my life to... to, you know, kind of be a
political person.
- GWB.

[John Rudd]

(I am re-including .dnd and .advocacy in the groups because they're
where this thread originated, and the discussion should continue to
include them; and I'm adding .super-heroes to cover the Hero side of
things)

Does anyone you know run 10k point characters? I'm still trying to grok the
1600-point robot in Gurps 4. All I've ever built have been around 100 or 150.

While I realize GURPS and HERO do not match 1 to 1 on what an X point
character has, I seem to recall that in Hero you can create God with
less than 1000 pts ... I'm not sure what the point of a 1600 point robot
would be, much less a 10,000 point anything.

I get the impression Hero is far more logarithmic than GURPS... 1K would be quite insufficient to do a reasonable christian god in GURPS. (Unless 4ed has changed such things drastically, but the munches they fixed from 3ed got better the higher you got.) 1K-2K is high-end superheroes.

I think it was first asserted for Hero 2nd edition, and I don't recall
if it held up in 3rd or 4th. And, I'll admit that it was a cheesy
thing, but it stands up philosophically.

The assertion was that God has one power: about 800 or so points of
"Transform" which is usable on "the universe" (in a metaphysical sense,
not just in a mechanical/physical sense, so got might decide to
transform the current metaphysical state of the universe from one in
which you are alive into one in which you are not alive). Then you fill
in the other details with the remaining 200 points.


My personal alteration of that would be that he has a Variable Power
Pool, maybe cosmic but maybe not, and his favorite configuration is to
put all 800 points into that transform power.

[Keith Davies]

Post by John Rudd
"Transform" which is usable on "the universe" (in a metaphysical sense,
not just in a mechanical/physical sense, so got might decide to
transform the current metaphysical state of the universe from one in
which you are alive into one in which you are not alive). Then you fill
in the other details with the remaining 200 points.

'wish' is implemented in HERO Grimoire as 'Extradimensional Movement'
'to universe where $foo is true', where $foo is the condition wished
for.


Keith

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Keith Davies

Post by John Rudd
"Transform" which is usable on "the universe" (in a metaphysical sense,
not just in a mechanical/physical sense, so got might decide to
transform the current metaphysical state of the universe from one in
which you are alive into one in which you are not alive). Then you fill
in the other details with the remaining 200 points.

'wish' is implemented in HERO Grimoire as 'Extradimensional Movement'
'to universe where $foo is true', where $foo is the condition wished
for.

Eeeeeeeeeeew. That's so wrong as to be almost indescribable. That's
"Shadow Walk" from Amber, not Wish. Wishing changes the universe
you're in. The other way means that you no longer are with your
friends, just really really really really close duplicates of them.
Unless your universe has no metaphysical component, or the movement is
ALSO the destruction of the old universe and the re-creation as you
specified in the new, with the souls et.al. of the old being transferred.

[David Johnston]

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:02:38 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Keith Davies

Post by John Rudd
"Transform" which is usable on "the universe" (in a metaphysical sense,
not just in a mechanical/physical sense, so got might decide to
transform the current metaphysical state of the universe from one in
which you are alive into one in which you are not alive). Then you fill
in the other details with the remaining 200 points.

'wish' is implemented in HERO Grimoire as 'Extradimensional Movement'
'to universe where $foo is true', where $foo is the condition wished
for.

Eeeeeeeeeeew. That's so wrong as to be almost indescribable. That's
"Shadow Walk" from Amber, not Wish. Wishing changes the universe
you're in.

Wishing gets you what you want. The rest is just details. From the
point of view of the person making the wish, it seems like he has
transformed the universe. He'll never know what he's really done to
himself or that in his original universe he may have mysteriously
disappeared.

[Ken Arromdee]

Post by David Johnston
Wishing gets you what you want. The rest is just details. From the
point of view of the person making the wish, it seems like he has
transformed the universe. He'll never know what he's really done to
himself or that in his original universe he may have mysteriously
disappeared.

Then why don't we implement teleportation as "movement to a universe where
everything is a mile to the left", or blasters as "movement to a universe
where the equivalent of this object has blast damage"?

[David Johnston]

Post by Ken Arromdee

Post by David Johnston
Wishing gets you what you want. The rest is just details. From the
point of view of the person making the wish, it seems like he has
transformed the universe. He'll never know what he's really done to
himself or that in his original universe he may have mysteriously
disappeared.

Then why don't we implement teleportation as "movement to a universe where
everything is a mile to the left", or blasters as "movement to a universe
where the equivalent of this object has blast damage"?

Because those things are a lot easier to do and a bit less potentially
troublesome than really transforming the universe to suit your whim.

Post by Ken Arromdee
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright
brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." --Carl Sagan

[Keith Davies]

Post by Ken Arromdee

Post by David Johnston
Wishing gets you what you want. The rest is just details. From the
point of view of the person making the wish, it seems like he has
transformed the universe. He'll never know what he's really done to
himself or that in his original universe he may have mysteriously
disappeared.

Then why don't we implement teleportation as "movement to a universe
where everything is a mile to the left", or blasters as "movement to a
universe where the equivalent of this object has blast damage"?

Because those are much simpler effects, easily modeled 'in this
universe'. They require very little change, overall, whereas /wish/
has the option of fundamentally changing things... a much greater effect
than just burning someone to the ground.

For that matter, I suppose wish should probably have the 'any dimension'
adder, and possibly even more, since it isn't limited to a single other
dimension. Each casting is, but the potential is there to make *any*
change and find the right universe to support it.

Personally, I'd probably model a wish as a really big VPP ('any power'),
single use. That actually supports being able to different-size wishes,
too.


Keith

[Sea Wasp]

Post by David Johnston
Wishing gets you what you want. The rest is just details. From the
point of view of the person making the wish, it seems like he has
transformed the universe. He'll never know what he's really done to
himself or that in his original universe he may have mysteriously
disappeared.

Really? I'm afraid you're making assumptions based on a rather
limited worldview. Your statement above wouldn't be true in the
current campaign I'm running, nor in several of the prior ones, nor in
a number I've gamed in. For instance, Peter Flaumel in my current game
is a Ki Warrior, and he can "see" the essence -- the soul -- of
people, if he concentrates hard enough. And Shadows -- parallels of
people in other universes -- do NOT have identical souls.

[Arne Jamtgaard]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by David Johnston
Wishing gets you what you want. The rest is just details. From the
point of view of the person making the wish, it seems like he has
transformed the universe. He'll never know what he's really done to
himself or that in his original universe he may have mysteriously
disappeared.

Really? I'm afraid you're making assumptions based on a rather
limited worldview.
And Shadows -- parallels of people in other
universes -- do NOT have identical souls.

The original poster ("Wishing moves you to an identical universe where
your wish is true") is, I'm assuming, using the mechanic that these
alternate dimensions are not populated by "Shadows" (your term), but by
identical down to the soul level people. Your (limited worldview) overlay
on the Hero mechanics makes it not work for your games or your character.
His would.

Or do you have the inside track on the truth behind alternate universes
that we should know about?

That said, if my character found out that that was the mechanism for wishes,
he would stop using them immediately. It does creep me (and would him) out.

Arne

[Sea Wasp]

Post by David Johnston
Wishing gets you what you want. The rest is just details. From the
point of view of the person making the wish, it seems like he has
transformed the universe. He'll never know what he's really done to
himself or that in his original universe he may have mysteriously
disappeared.

(BTW, thanks for one of the clearest demonstrations I've seen of why
"effects-based" games like Champs/Hero fail miserably to do certain
things properly from a global coherent universe point of view)

[David Johnston]

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:24:29 GMT, Sea Wasp

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by David Johnston
Wishing gets you what you want. The rest is just details. From the
point of view of the person making the wish, it seems like he has
transformed the universe. He'll never know what he's really done to
himself or that in his original universe he may have mysteriously
disappeared.

(BTW, thanks for one of the clearest demonstrations I've seen of why
"effects-based" games like Champs/Hero fail miserably to do certain
things properly from a global coherent universe point of view)

What is "incoherent" about wishes taking you to a world where what you
wished for is true?

[Keith Davies]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Keith Davies

Post by John Rudd
"Transform" which is usable on "the universe" (in a metaphysical sense,
not just in a mechanical/physical sense, so got might decide to
transform the current metaphysical state of the universe from one in
which you are alive into one in which you are not alive). Then you fill
in the other details with the remaining 200 points.

'wish' is implemented in HERO Grimoire as 'Extradimensional Movement'
'to universe where $foo is true', where $foo is the condition wished
for.

Eeeeeeeeeeew. That's so wrong as to be almost indescribable. That's
"Shadow Walk" from Amber, not Wish. Wishing changes the universe
you're in. The other way means that you no longer are with your
friends, just really really really really close duplicates of them.
Unless your universe has no metaphysical component, or the movement is
ALSO the destruction of the old universe and the re-creation as you
specified in the new, with the souls et.al. of the old being
transferred.

Yep, I think it's cucky too. I understand why they did it that way, but
as I said in another message, I'd probably do it as a big VPP (basically
'any power'), single use. This gives you wishes of different sizes and
limits -- to some extent -- how the wish works. A 100-point VPP or a
1000-point VPP, there's a significant difference in what can be done.


Keith

[David Johnston]

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:02:57 GMT, Keith Davies

Post by Keith Davies

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Keith Davies

Post by John Rudd
"Transform" which is usable on "the universe" (in a metaphysical sense,
not just in a mechanical/physical sense, so got might decide to
transform the current metaphysical state of the universe from one in
which you are alive into one in which you are not alive). Then you fill
in the other details with the remaining 200 points.

'wish' is implemented in HERO Grimoire as 'Extradimensional Movement'
'to universe where $foo is true', where $foo is the condition wished
for.

Eeeeeeeeeeew. That's so wrong as to be almost indescribable. That's
"Shadow Walk" from Amber, not Wish. Wishing changes the universe
you're in. The other way means that you no longer are with your
friends, just really really really really close duplicates of them.
Unless your universe has no metaphysical component, or the movement is
ALSO the destruction of the old universe and the re-creation as you
specified in the new, with the souls et.al. of the old being
transferred.

Yep, I think it's cucky too. I understand why they did it that way, but
as I said in another message, I'd probably do it as a big VPP (basically
'any power'), single use. This gives you wishes of different sizes and
limits -- to some extent -- how the wish works.

There are of course different ways to do Wish. I kind of like
"transported to a parallel universe where your wish is true" simply
because it manages to handle all those wishes that are so hard to buy
with points like "I wish my mother had survived her car crash" or "I
wish Buffy had never come to Sunnydale" or even "I wish I'd never been
born since I've ruined everything."

Besides, it has some entertaining implications. For example, a
villain could scheme to get his hands on a wish item just so his
opponent would stop him, use it and wish himself out of the villain's
hair.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

[trimmed to .advocacy]

Post by David Johnston
There are of course different ways to do Wish. I kind of like
"transported to a parallel universe where your wish is true" simply
because it manages to handle all those wishes that are so hard to buy
with points like "I wish my mother had survived her car crash" or "I
wish Buffy had never come to Sunnydale" or even "I wish I'd never been
born since I've ruined everything."
Besides, it has some entertaining implications. For example, a
villain could scheme to get his hands on a wish item just so his
opponent would stop him, use it and wish himself out of the villain's
hair.

The implication of this is that from the point of view of non-Wishers,
the spell is really "Make the caster disappear permanently." That's
what it does, and that's all it does!

Why does anyone ever cast this? How did they get the idea it
grants your wish? How could you ever demonstrate that it does?

I think it's too player-character-centric an implementation, myself.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Patrick Spinler]

Post by David Johnston
Besides, it has some entertaining implications. For example, a
villain could scheme to get his hands on a wish item just so his
opponent would stop him, use it and wish himself out of the villain's
hair.

This is a point. It's semi-traditional for wish granters to grant the
letter but twist the spirt of a wish. This is kind of a twisted way to
do so.

In this instance, as GM I might arrange for the hero to find out that
the villan is still operating back in his home dimension, and has, in
fact, killed the girl, or blown the nuke, or assassinated the president,
or ...

-- Pat