Threw a bunch of posts into one...this is a biggie...
From: "Robert A. Knop Jr."
>> A certain level of bias is necessary, otherwise you
>>may as well be playing a computer game. But an
>>unbiased game is something that should be aimed
>> for.
>
>This sounds directly contradictory....
Well, it's kind of like the concept that war is bad. War is a bad thing...just about everyone would agree on that topic...you want to fight as little as possible, but sometimes, you have to fight. Peace is something that should be aimed for, but not if its going to result in worse consequences. I guess it's kinda an "eastern" philosophy towards gaming..."you can never attain perfection, but should should always try" sort of concept.
>Regarding "power" in the hands of the GM, I'm with >Carl: I view that as a red herring. I've heard
>various complaints about the "problem" of the GM
>having too much power (on up to somebody all but
>claiming that it was time to end the GM reign of
>terror-- which I know you aren't doing here!). I
>think that Ma Berry hit it on the nose: play with a GM
>you trust. Fairness and unbiased are red
>herrings.
Thing is, a GM who's running a diceless game is immediately going to set up a red flag in my head. I don't want to play with a GM that I think is going to be unfair and biased. If they're running a diceless game, I immediately start wondering why. In the admittedly few experiences I've had, it was often because they wanted to be able to dictate where the story went and this sometimes extended into character interactions as well.
Let me say again that this is all based on my experiences, which I don't suggest is the end of being, and that these are just my opinions. I've no problem with other people having different opinions...that's what makes discussions like this fun. Of course, I'd love to have someone else chime in here...I'm starting to feel ganged up on. :) I didn't realize there were so many diceless gamers around here :)
> "Having fun" is what matters, but it can't
>just be immediate viceral fun. Well, it can be, but
>the best games is where, when looked at over a long
>period of time, it's still fun and it's fun in memory.
I totally agree that "Having fun" is what matters. That's why it's no biggie for me that others have fun with diceless games. Me, I need at least some impression that a GM's biases will be mitigated to have this fun. If I find out after I get into a game that the GM's biases are still overwhelming (which I have in diceful games), I'll then head out.
>A purely character-drive game can be a great thing; it
>sounds like it's the sort of thing you prefer. But a
>reasonably plot-driven game, where there is a lot of
>stuff going on in the world that the characters don't
>know about, and where there are things that either
>will happen or that NPCs will try to make happen, can
>also be a whole lot of fun. Some of my favorite games
>I've played in have focused more on the players trying
>to figure out what was going on rather than entirely
>on them controlling their own destiny and
>participating in a collaborative story.
Funny thing is, one of my biggest complaints to my players is that they're not independent enough. If I don't throw something at them, I sometimes get the impression that they'll sit around and do nothing. Don't get me wrong, my players are some of the best I've ever gamed with...just one of my minor frustrations.
>Each to his own.
That I agree with whole heartedly. I'm not trying to tell anyone what the best way to game is...well, more on that next.
>> Very true. In which case, he'd be failing as a GM
>>because he's letting his biases influence the reality
>>of his game world. A good GM can cover this up, but
>>even so, he still shouldn't do it...not during the
>>game. Before the game, he can plan out adventures,
>>determine which powers are appropriate for what,
>>etc. During the game itself, though, let luck take
>>its course. Don't beef up an encounter because the
>>players are having it too easy or vice versa...that
>>means that players cannot rely on the consistency of
>>reality that must exist in a game (related to
>>suspension of disbelief).
>
>I disagree with this statement. I don't disagree that >it's a valid and good way to play-- what I disagree >with is that it's the only valid and good way
>to play, and that the GM "shouldn't" be altering >upcoming encounters after he's out of the >defined "adventure writing" phase of GMing.
I don't think its the only valid way to play. Sheryl Crow comes to mind "If it makes you happy...it can't be that bad..." It's the only way you're going to get me to enjoy a game, though. If I think you're stacking the deck because the players are suddenly getting overwhelmed too early in the adventure or because they're having too easy of a time with it, I'm going to take issue (more the latter than the former, to be honest). Sometimes, players are smart, they get lucky (unless it's a diceless game, of course) and they plan well. An adventure that you thought would be tough, they're racing through. Putting more monsters in, to me, is tantamount to punishing them for being too "good" about it. Or maybe the reverse is true, and they're getting trounced because they made some bad decisions. Halfing the hit points of the opponents or otherwise fudging is patronizing, to me. If you made a mistake in planning, learn from it and move on. If your players made a mistake, let them learn from it and move on. Changing the situation to fit what you, as GM, feel is somehow "best" detracts from the player's input into the game. That's going to detract from the fun of the game for me, both as a player and as a GM.
>There's a lot to be said for the GM quick on his feet
>who adjusts the challenge levels and such based on how
>the players are doing, correcting his misestimates of
>what he intended to throw at the players ahead of
>time. You may not like it, and it's fine to play that
>way. But also, if done with the right GM and the
>right group of players, it can make the whole thing a
>lot more fun if the GM is willing to tune up the world
>not based just on some pure randomizer, but also based
>on his changing impression during play of what will
>work best.
Obviously, I'm not one of those right players :)
mabarry@xpert.net:
>> A diceless game puts more "power" (if you will) into
>> the hands of one person, detracting from the
>>collective nature of the game.
>
>See, as a diceless GM, I don't believe that at all. >With power comes responsibility, because if I -ever-
>abuse my power, I lose the trust of my players. If I
>use dice to kill off a player, am I somehow any MORE
>responsible?
No...if you kill of a player, you go to jail (hopefully), unless you live in Texas, in which case you're killed. (*snicker*...couldn't resist...)
If you rely on the dice in most of your life-and-death situations, you are closer to being fair about who lives and who dies. Of course, a GM can still go overboard...for an extreme example, lets say a demon pops up, attacks the annoying thief and then disappears once the thief is pasted. Obviously, this is a case of GM biases coming into play and is the ear-mark of a Bad GM, even though he used dice to do it.
If you are running a diceless game, the decision on who lives and who dies is completely in the hands of the GM (unless the character does something truly suicidal, like jump off a mile-high cliff). Of course, most of the diceless GM's I've played with (which are admittedly few) avoid this problem by making sure characters never die, but there are still things that happen to the characters which can cause a lot of player grumpiness because they are, ultimately, the decision of the GM alone.
>What you say with the, "I don't want to guide my
>players any more than absolutely necessary," does not
>become any less true without dice, or any more with
>dice. Random resolution is just that: random. It
>takes the GM to make the real decisions... the device
>du jour is the tool one applies to _aid_ in that
>decision making. To make either method (pure whimsy
>or pure die roll) primary is to invite excess...
If the GM makes the decision to use dice as the primary means of resolution in certain situations, such as combat and certain skill checks, the players know that there's an even playing field that is altered by their decisions.
>> dislike most role-playing skills or abilities, such
>>as Bluff or Fast Talk. I may use a die to figure out
>>which way an NPC is leaning in these situations, but
>>I try to rely on the PC's role playing ability more.
>
>See, as someone who hates talking to people in
>general, a decision like that penalizes me in
>particular because while my -character- might have a
>near-perfect score in fast-talk, I, myself, have a
>tendency to trip over my own words. Dice would be
>much more "fair." On the other hand, I'm an expert
>at "plastic sword." Why not let your charisma
>players get the benefit of their skills, and let me
>defeat the GM-as-NPC in plastic sword combat?
Because it detracts from playing the role. RPing is a social activity. In my games, if you feel like you're not a good speaker, you have two options. 1) Don't play a character that is socially strong or 2) grow as a person (note: not "grow up"...I don't want any confusion here, as I've got eggshells on my shoes already). Option 1 happens all the time...everyone has certain types of characters they don't particularly enjoy playing or can't play effectively...cross-gender characters come to mind as an obvious example for most (but not nearly all) players. Option 2 is obviously the tougher way to take things, but I think a worthy one. To me, both of these options are a lot better than "okay, I walk up to the guard and use my fast talk to get past them...I rolled an 87." That, to me, is an over-reliance on dice.
From: "Karen Cravens"
>> Exactly my point...authors write novels, short
>>stories, etc. These mediums don't require a lot of
>>interaction. RPGs do. The GM is not an author (at
>> least while he's running the game) but the talents
>>of a good author help, as long as those talents don't
>>overcome his responsibility to be fair. The
>>randomness of dice help mitigate the chances of that
>>happening.
>
>I hate to be obstinate, but I'm not connecting
>anything here (or in what I snipped) with "fairness"
>versus "randomness," or seeing where having players
>makes a difference. You said, and I hope I'm not
>misquoting since I'm too lazy to go look at the
>archives, that eventually a GM will go too far, or
>something along those lines. Why, then, wouldn't an
>author eventually go too far, when he hasn't even got
>the feedback of a bunch of players to give him >guidelines?
Actually, I misspoke a bit an author can go too far, he just has greater leeway because he doesn't have the same responsibility to his readers that a GM has to his players. For an example of an author who takes things too far, take David Eddings. I love his Belgariad stuff...it's strongly influenced my games. But his Elenium series takes things too far. The central character, Sparhawk, is too much of a bad*ss. Eddings isn't fair to his world by making Sparhawk so incredibly untouchable.
The author, though, doesn't have the same level of responsiblity towards fairness that a GM does. If you're going to be a GM, you've made a decision to create a world, much like an author, and create situations within that world for adventure, again, much like an author. When it comes to telling the story, though, you're role as GM is more limited than that of an author. An author must weave the entire tapestry of the story and has the convenience of pacing and structure to get where he wants to go. The GM has a responsiblity to let his players weave a major part of the story. If he tries to aim the story himself over-much, you get into railroading, which is the extreme of what I'm discussing here.
>It's vaguely insulting to anybody who runs diceless,
>too: "You screw up your games. Or if you haven't
>yet, you will."
That's not what I'm trying to say and I'm really sorry that I gave you that impression. What I've been trying to say is that "If you run a diceless game, you will screw up the game *for me*."
As an example, I had a GM once who was more into the storytelling aspect of gaming and was running a diceless game. She'd come into RPGs from a different direction than I had, so we had somewhat opposing viewpoints on what made a good game. Now, this was a PBEM game and, to be honest, it was the best PBEM that I've played in, since or before. We locked horns more than a few times, but one of the big "fights," if you will, was a result of me shooting another PC. She contacted me privately and told me I shouldn't do that, that it was against the spirit of the game, and asked me to re-write the post that I had made. Needless to say, I hit the roof (more than I likely should have), but eventually aquiesced and re-wrote the actions. I was trying out a new style of play, for me, and was willing to "play ball." To be honest, I had a lot of fun in that game...the GM was very talented. But in those instances where I felt my actions, as a player, were affected by the GM's opinion of what a "good game" was, my "fun-level" was decreased. In that game, I could overlook these instances and have fun, but I would have had a lot more fun if they hadn't happened. I know that there were other players in the game that this didn't bother (and they likely weren't as much of a "problem player" as I was).
Lucifer >:}
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
