It means you're a normal player that's great to have in a game :)
Yay, I'm normal! ^_^ *
* I'm really not normal...
Well somebody has to be, we can't all be old and broken like me :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
It means you're a normal player that's great to have in a game :)
Yay, I'm normal! ^_^ *
* I'm really not normal...
Are any of us? :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
"Or maybe he's just being a dick." Now THAT's funny, I don't care who ya are.
My question, all due respect, Nebuchidnezzar, is, as DM (from the few times I have run a game , and only being mediocre as a DM, at best) I have a steadfast house rule:
No rules-lawyering or Meta-gaming at the table.
You seem to infer that you somewhat allow a degree of both in your game. Do you not find this disruptive? I've always insisted we discuss any rules issue after a given session
unless there's been some grave and obvious oversight upon my part. Is this a mistake, to dis-allow these disruptions?
I find it terribly disruptive and don't hesitate to throw them out should they create a problem. I've a line of people wanting to join the game so it's not like their seat will grow cold.
There is only 1 hard, fast, and inviolate rule of being a GM: Run the game you want to run. It's your game, you're the GM. Clearly state expectations up front, before characters are even rolled. "This is what I expect of you, the players, and this is what I'm going to do as a GM. If you do not like this, then I respect your decision, please find another game."
GMing a game is a lot like dating. You need the right chemistry, you'll look forever before you find the perfect group, and you'll run a lot of really horrible ones before you do, unless you're seriously lucky.
My GMing style is not for everyone, I accepted that long ago. I run Mercer-style games, but I've been running them that way since before Matt was born, but I have to acknowledge the contributions of the Mercer-Renaissance so it's named after him. I've had 2-3 sessions in a row with absolutely no combat, deep RP, lots of interaction between the players, a very immersive game. Encounters players (folks who like 1-shots and "DnD as a board game") hate my style with a passion, find it boring as snot and don't last long. Are they wrong? Of course not, and neither am I. RPGs are very personal, everyone has a style and what they enjoy and should find like-minded people to enjoy it with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
My question, all due respect, Nebuchidnezzar, is, as DM (from the few times I have run a game , and only being mediocre as a DM, at best) I have a steadfast house rule:
No rules-lawyering or Meta-gaming at the table.
You seem to infer that you somewhat allow a degree of both in your game. Do you not find this disruptive? I've always insisted we discuss any rules issue after a given session
unless there's been some grave and obvious oversight upon my part. Is this a mistake, to dis-allow these disruptions?
Several points (as always)...
Who rated you as a 'mediocre DM'? If a player returned to your table, then I am sure it was not them. I can't speak for other DMs, but I am my own worst critic. I have had sessions where I would have rated my performance as 'poor', yet the players still enjoyed it - it was like they were playing a different game! I think that sometimes the most important role a GM (deliberate switch) has is that of the person who says "It's OK to pretend you are an elven sorceress - nobody is judging you. Have fun tonight, for tomorrow you return to being 'Steve in Accounts' " If a GM can get the players to whole-heartedly invest in the world, then that is a long way to 'job done.'
I suspect that Nebuchidnezzar and I hold some VERY different viewpoints on "how the game should be played" but I would bet vital parts of my anatomy that he agrees with me on that point.
For me, the biggest difference between RPGs and Boardgames is the minumum level of investment you need to have. You can play Descent or MTG with the same clinical detachment as Deep Blue playing chess (or Mr. Spock playing tiddly-winks) and barely affect anyone else's enjoyment of the game. You can play these games and retain your sense of being a sensible adult who is stretching his/her powers of strategic thinking. You are definitely not a geek. You can play those games with full investment and roleplaying and even cosplay, but it's not a requirement, and outsiders will definitely look at you strangely....
So Meta-gaming (whatever that means to you) is a bad thing and should be discouraged? Not always. Meta-gaming can be a form of investment. I would even argue that players are FORCED to meta-game, especially in Nebuchidnezzar's game.
WHAT???
"Clearly state expectations up front, before characters are even rolled. "This is what I expect of you, the players, and this is what I'm going to do as a GM. If you do not like this, then I respect your decision, please find another game." - Nebuchidnezzar
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It does however mean that players have to constantly be asking themselves - "Will this action be in violation of the table rules?" Doesn't sound very relaxing does it? It also sounds like the very definition (if there was one) of meta-gaming. When I GM and a player 'over-steps' the mark, I decide whether it is worth reacting to, and then react accordingly. I suspect Nebuchidnezzar does the same - hence your confusion when he seems to infer that he allows a degree of both in his game.
Rules-lawyering I see in a similar light. I have certain expectations and understandings of how the world works. If another player attempts to do something that seems to break the reality of the shared world, then that risks breaking my immersion in it. It attacks the verisimilitude* of the world itself. Why should I continue to invest in something that is broken? Sometimes it is better to speak up, have a brief discussion, put a band-aid over the situation, and move on. Not all rules lawyers are doing it to be *****.
I read (with some horror /wink ;) ) Nebuchidnezzar's original post. I think the message of the post, the advice if you will, is that there are different types of players and not all of them will fit in with your particular style of gameplay; all players are good - it's just that some of them are playing the wrong style of game for them.
So allow meta-gaming or don't. Allow Rules discussions or don't. But don't blanket ban either; try to understand why they have occurred.
For me, the biggest difference between RPGs and Boardgames is the minumum level of investment you need to have. You can play Descent or MTG with the same clinical detachment as Deep Blue playing chess (or Mr. Spock playing tiddly-winks) and barely affect anyone else's enjoyment of the game. You can play these games and retain your sense of being a sensible adult who is stretching his/her powers of strategic thinking. You are definitely not a geek. You can play those games with full investment and roleplaying and even cosplay, but it's not a requirement, and outsiders will definitely look at you strangely....
Nebuchidnezzar demands a higher level of investment than I do. We would probably not enjoy each others games as much as we deserve.
I reckon if we met in the pub, we would get on like old war veterans. Unless he's a dick. (I thought I'd recycle a joke!) And if we co-DM'ed a game, it would probably be the best game in the world!
Rule #1 of being a great DM - Believe in yourself and your world. If you don't, how can you expect more from the players?
*verisimilitude : I don't like this word (it fits the mouth badly and doesn't really add anything to the word 'truth'), but include it as a nod to another far more famous GM than me. :) The use of the word will never go viral, but pandemic is not unlikely. :)
I suspect that Nebuchidnezzar and I hold some VERY different viewpoints on "how the game should be played" but I would bet vital parts of my anatomy that he agrees with me on that point.
I would even argue that players are FORCED to meta-game, especially in Nebuchidnezzar's game.
It does however mean that players have to constantly be asking themselves - "Will this action be in violation of the table rules?"
Just a couple of comments, in no particular order.
No clue who called that guy a "mediocre DM". To me there's no such thing. Do people enjoy your game? Then you're a great DM. Do people not enjoy it? Then find people who do. As I said above, not everyone likes every DM's style, and vice versa. There are no bad players or DMs, just bad combinations.
This is a link to one of the games I started, the advertisement that I use to find players (https://www.reddit.com/r/lfg/comments/8dhbia/offlinelfp5thedpdxhillsboropst_new_game_looking/). I got 4 people who said my game would clearly suck, and over 20 people who wanted to play...no bad games, just bad combinations. Many of them were out of town, but the ones who were near I met to interview because chemistry is absolutely important.
I'm currently running 2 games, both with 7 people, one with 3 women and 4 men, and one with 2 men and 5 women. The games are different from each other because of the composition of the players and both will run for years, which is how I love them. They don't spend all of their time wondering if they're breaking house rules because the house rules are very simple. The one regarding meta is the simplest...if your character doesn't know, then don't talk about it. You see a creature that you've fought on another toon, but this toon has never met or seen one, don't shout "Oh, a black pudding, don't use slashing or lightning!" If you do, then I will frown fiercely and if you continue to do it we will discuss your future in someone else's game...it's not like I don't have a list of a dozen people who'd love to have your seat.
My OP was a joke, stolen from Aaron Alston, Rach Bartmoss, and my own personal experience, and not meant to start fights :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
IMHO, I'm basically a puzzle gamer - I can't help seeing every combat, social interaction, etc. as a puzzle to be solved, I know as much of my fellow partymembers' skills and inventories as they'll let, and I can't help proposing strategies for everything. I tend to min/max because that's an interesting puzzle too, but don't mind throwing away an advantage if it will make the later game more interesting.
Rule Lawyer and Pro from Dover are my titles. I have read the PHB front back and sideways. I also am a DM after all so I try to memorize what rules I can to help my players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
"Or maybe he's just being a dick." Now THAT's funny, I don't care who ya are.
My question, all due respect, Nebuchidnezzar, is, as DM (from the few times I have run a game , and only being mediocre as a DM, at best) I have a steadfast house rule:
No rules-lawyering or Meta-gaming at the table.
You seem to infer that you somewhat allow a degree of both in your game. Do you not find this disruptive? I've always insisted we discuss any rules issue after a given session
unless there's been some grave and obvious oversight upon my part. Is this a mistake, to dis-allow these disruptions?
I find it terribly disruptive and don't hesitate to throw them out should they create a problem. I've a line of people wanting to join the game so it's not like their seat will grow cold.
There is only 1 hard, fast, and inviolate rule of being a GM: Run the game you want to run. It's your game, you're the GM. Clearly state expectations up front, before characters are even rolled. "This is what I expect of you, the players, and this is what I'm going to do as a GM. If you do not like this, then I respect your decision, please find another game."
GMing a game is a lot like dating. You need the right chemistry, you'll look forever before you find the perfect group, and you'll run a lot of really horrible ones before you do, unless you're seriously lucky.
My GMing style is not for everyone, I accepted that long ago. I run Mercer-style games, but I've been running them that way since before Matt was born, but I have to acknowledge the contributions of the Mercer-Renaissance so it's named after him. I've had 2-3 sessions in a row with absolutely no combat, deep RP, lots of interaction between the players, a very immersive game. Encounters players (folks who like 1-shots and "DnD as a board game") hate my style with a passion, find it boring as snot and don't last long. Are they wrong? Of course not, and neither am I. RPGs are very personal, everyone has a style and what they enjoy and should find like-minded people to enjoy it with.
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
If a player returned to your table, then I am sure it was not them. I can't speak for other DMs, but I am my own worst critic. I have had sessions where I would have rated my performance as 'poor', yet the players still enjoyed it - it was like they were playing a different game!
I think that sometimes the most important role a GM (deliberate switch) has is that of the person who says "It's OK to pretend you are an elven sorceress - nobody is judging you. Have fun tonight, for tomorrow you return to being 'Steve in Accounts' "
If a GM can get the players to whole-heartedly invest in the world, then that is a long way to 'job done.'
You can play those games with full investment and roleplaying and even cosplay, but it's not a requirement, and outsiders will definitely look at you strangely....
Not always. Meta-gaming can be a form of investment.
I would even argue that players are FORCED to meta-game, especially in Nebuchidnezzar's game.
It does however mean that players have to constantly be asking themselves - "Will this action be in violation of the table rules?"
Doesn't sound very relaxing does it? It also sounds like the very definition (if there was one) of meta-gaming.
When I GM and a player 'over-steps' the mark, I decide whether it is worth reacting to, and then react accordingly. I suspect Nebuchidnezzar does the same - hence your confusion when he seems to infer that he allows a degree of both in his game.
I have certain expectations and understandings of how the world works. If another player attempts to do something that seems to break the reality of the shared world, then that risks breaking my immersion in it. It attacks the verisimilitude* of the world itself. Why should I continue to invest in something that is broken?
Sometimes it is better to speak up, have a brief discussion, put a band-aid over the situation, and move on.
Not all rules lawyers are doing it to be *****.
You can play those games with full investment and roleplaying and even cosplay, but it's not a requirement, and outsiders will definitely look at you strangely....
We would probably not enjoy each others games as much as we deserve.
And if we co-DM'ed a game, it would probably be the best game in the world!
Roleplaying since Runequest.
I agree with the 'no blanket ban' rule. There will always be some kind of situation that breaks the rules.
Just a couple of comments, in no particular order.
No clue who called that guy a "mediocre DM". To me there's no such thing. Do people enjoy your game? Then you're a great DM. Do people not enjoy it? Then find people who do. As I said above, not everyone likes every DM's style, and vice versa. There are no bad players or DMs, just bad combinations.
This is a link to one of the games I started, the advertisement that I use to find players (https://www.reddit.com/r/lfg/comments/8dhbia/offlinelfp5thedpdxhillsboropst_new_game_looking/). I got 4 people who said my game would clearly suck, and over 20 people who wanted to play...no bad games, just bad combinations. Many of them were out of town, but the ones who were near I met to interview because chemistry is absolutely important.
I'm currently running 2 games, both with 7 people, one with 3 women and 4 men, and one with 2 men and 5 women. The games are different from each other because of the composition of the players and both will run for years, which is how I love them. They don't spend all of their time wondering if they're breaking house rules because the house rules are very simple. The one regarding meta is the simplest...if your character doesn't know, then don't talk about it. You see a creature that you've fought on another toon, but this toon has never met or seen one, don't shout "Oh, a black pudding, don't use slashing or lightning!" If you do, then I will frown fiercely and if you continue to do it we will discuss your future in someone else's game...it's not like I don't have a list of a dozen people who'd love to have your seat.
My OP was a joke, stolen from Aaron Alston, Rach Bartmoss, and my own personal experience, and not meant to start fights :P
Ancient GM, started in '76, have played almost everything at some point or another.
I run/play Mercer-style games, heavy on the RP and interaction, light on the combat-monster and rule-lawyering. The goal is to tell an epic story with the players and the players are as involved in the world building as the GM is. I run and play a very Brechtian style, am huge into RP theory and love discussing improv and offers.
I've played under great DMs, I consider myself nowhere near their league. I also imagine if I were a better DM, people might be darkening my door
in order to play in games I host. Unfortunately, my talent for the DM craft is matching the demand for it. I can live with that, as I am much more
comfortable as a PC. It's just that I have seen, generally as a PC, some fine games marred by rules lawyering and Metagaming, usually about
minor and inconsequential issues. Generally, if I am DMing a game, it's because of the group's lack of other options.
IMHO, I'm basically a puzzle gamer - I can't help seeing every combat, social interaction, etc. as a puzzle to be solved, I know as much of my fellow partymembers' skills and inventories as they'll let, and I can't help proposing strategies for everything. I tend to min/max because that's an interesting puzzle too, but don't mind throwing away an advantage if it will make the later game more interesting.
I'm an Ultimate Roleplayer with some Meta Fiend tendencies. I try to keep it in check, though!
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Rule Lawyer and Pro from Dover are my titles. I have read the PHB front back and sideways. I also am a DM after all so I try to memorize what rules I can to help my players.