Judging the Game

[craddoke]

I like the agency theory introduced in the article, but I disagree with the advice to always resist fudging the dice. GMs are human and sometimes make mistakes - perhaps an unusual combination of enemies whose special attacks are particularly deadly in combination with one another. Should the GM simply sit back and let their miscalculation lead to the annihilation of the player group? I would say no. That takes away the players' agency just as surely as never letting them suffer the consequences of their own bad decisions.

In short, fudge the dice when you (as GM) inevitably make a mistake. When the players make their inevitable mistakes, treat the dice rolls as sacrosanct.

 

[Tempest Fennac]

I really liked the article (the agency part corresponds exactly to my personal experience, and it explains why I hate games where the DM sees their main job as being story tellers who ignore rules as it suits them).

 

[fleischwolke]

A very nice article. I like the agency theory - it spells out some things that were always clear to me, but not verbalized. So that's the reason I never "got" Amber. A disagree a bit on the fudging thing with a very new player - unless you want to get rid of her/ him and show the rest of your group that you are serious business and not even the hot tears of a young girl/ boy will sway your resolve to adhere to the rules. Then go for it. But if your main objective is to keep a new player interested, then frustrating him is the wrong way. I think that's the main fallout of agency: While it is at the root for the enjoyment of the game in the medium and long term, in the short term (when the 1 stares the player in the face) it can be very frustrating. And the new player only knows the short term.

 

[Archon]

Regarding fudging the dice, in the article I said, "The agency theory says that you should never fudge a meaningful die roll." For space considerations I left out the corrollary of that, which is that it's perfectly acceptable for the GM to fudge meaningless die rolls.

For instance, if in the course of a fight, 19 of 20 orcs are killed and the last one is down to 4 hit points and a character hits him for 3, I may well fudge it to 4 to avoid having to run through the entire 10-minute initiative cycle again (we have a large player group). This is meaningless in that you're not changing the character intent (i.e. they want the orc dead) or the outcome (it's inevitable that the orc will die, given the entire mid-level party stacked against it). All you're doing is speeding up play.

But imagine that one player in the party was trying to capture the orc alive while another was a berserker trying to kill the orc. In that case, I'd not fudge the damage, and go into next round's initiative roll, because it will be meaningful as to whether the orc is captured or killed.

So by all means engage in meaningless fudges for the sake of convenience. Just don't fudge to make sure the game turns out your preferred way, as against the outcomes of the player's intent and actions.

Re: BlueinkAlchemist, you have figured out my writing style! Egad. I feel so understood.

Re: Story-telling, I'll make my next column about this, as it's clearly an area of huge interest and controversy!

 

[Archon]

Fleischwolke, that's an extremely well-considered response. I would argue that the appropriate solutions is to adjust the rules to protect the new player(s), however, rather than fudge the dice on the spot. Similar to how MMORPGs have tutorial levels or different rules for re-spawn for 1st level characters. For instance, you could make it an explicit rule of the campaign that 1st level characters of new players will be raised for free without loss of level/constitution, because the God of Heroes honors young people who sacrifice themselves (or whatever).

 

[Archon]

May I ask if you've ever tried the GURPS system? I ask merely because it's my favorite system (both to play and to GM) and I'd like to hear an industry expert's opinion on it.

I own a few editions of GURPS and some of the supplements (GURPS Fantasy, Cyberpunk, Biotech, Space). I haven't played or run the game, but I did extensively play its predecessor, The Fantasy Trip, back in the 80s. My reasons for not running it are essentially that (1) I don't personally like point-based character building and (2) I don't personally like "roll under" game mechanics. But these are mere matters of taste. I admire the GURPS design very much as a whole, and I think it's one of the best systems available for open-ended simulation style play.

 

[Alar]

i don't know why i read these, they just make me want to try DnD that much more, its a shame i cant get a group together to start, anyway great article i really got what you mean about the agency thing

Same here in regards to starting a group and wanting to play even more. I live in a small town (ten thousand people) and my group of friends is too spread out to regularly get together to start a game (if they would all even want to try it). To top it off, I don't think I'd want the responsibility of GMing, so I wouldn't be much help in that regard.

 

[8-Bit Grin]

When I DM my games I tend to have a fixed plot line that can be changed to fit what the PC'S want. By doing that I give them the illusion of choice, but in the end they end up where I want them to. If worst comes to worst and they *really* screw it up, I let 'em roam for a bit then knock them back on track next session. The time in between the sessions gives me time to refine. -F

 

[Plurralbles]

my current Gm is awesome. He simply created the world and had just one question for us at the beginning."do you want to start out as a party or find eachother?" we chose find and had an excellent bar fight with the wizard accidentally silencing hte entire block. It was great fun and it had nothing to do with the GM. He gave the setting. He did his job.

he did make our first battle outside of town be against black slime things though... Which were annoying but then we fought spiders and all was well in the world.

and amazingly my bear is still alive!

 

[Alex Haas]

I really like your articles they have really helped to shape my GMing a lot of the bad habits you mention I used to do all the time especially the railroading bit so thank you for the longest time I just never saw and alternative but now I'm officially a agency theorist of fun great stuff can't wait for the next article

 

[Mutak]

Agree with the article wholeheartedly. I've been playing and running games for a long time, and i've seen more people choose their way out of fun than i can count. Even the best GM in the world can't manufacture fun at will.

I would go even farther and say that it's not just the GM's job to provide an environment where people can have fun - it's everyone's job. Everyone will have more fun if everyone puts a little effort into making the game fun for everyone.

There need to be more articles about being a good player. Think about it: there are way more players than GMs but there are way more articles giving GM advice. People think it's easy to be a good player - show up on time and play your role. I would argue that it's much easier to be a competent player than a competent GM, but it's just as hard to be a good player as it is to be a good GM.

Here's my rule #1 for a gaming group: Don't play with people you don't like. If you wouldn't enjoy just sitting around and talking with a group of people, you won't enjoy a game whose primary activity involves sitting around and talking to one another.

~ M

 

[Ekonk]

Of course external effects apply to wether someone is having fun - if your dad just died, you're not gonna have fun playing a game - but assuming a complete neutral demeanour on the players part, it is the gamemasters job to make the game fun. Wether the players actually have fun depends on a lot of external factors, but if we ignore external factors, then they should have fun while playing.

 

[Stone Cold Monkey]

I agree with much of the essence of Archon's argument. The GM's role is to facilitate fun for all the players. My disagreement is from the Agency Theory (hypothesis). I often fudge rolls to increase the dramatic tension of actions, scenes, and plots. I see it as taking a movie that uses CGI (e.g. Batman Begins) opposed to more real-world FXs (e.g. Batman). The CGI dice fudging allows me to better control the effect I'm after. Where as the agency hypothesis may look more real, it rarely lends itself to bigger than life action (spectacular as it may be when it does happen). The trick is to make it look like that was how the dice landed. Just like CGI, the more real it looks the better and less is more. I do not interfere with a player character's decisions and choices, and I try not place any more bias (every GM shows their bias when assigning difficulty) than what I think will result in the most dramatic story that everyone will enjoy. That doesn't mean the players are completely safe from death. I'm considered the killer GM in my group with about 1 in 3 characters dying. A reputation I found some of the players liked my game because they knew my game was going to be a challenge. Refrain from controlling the player's choices and morals. If character wants to murder a hobo it the street while being in the publicly is the people's hero, and they had a good plan let them. Don't magically have a witness see them and blackmail them.

Archon's thoughts are a fine way to run and as well as many others. That is why in the video game world there are different styles of games from FPS to RTS to RPGs. Run a game the way that you believe will maximize the enjoyment of all the players (including the GM).

 

[bjj hero]

Really enjoyed this article. I used to RP and on some days think I'll go back to it one day.

I initially ended up as DM because no one else wanted to do it. It was an absolute baptism of fire, learning the rules (and often misinterpreted and misread them), players missing what I thought were obvious clues to further the story, miss judging the challenge presented by traps and monsters...

It took a few goes to iron out the kinks. I was DM from then on through 2nd edition, WOD, Paladium, 3rd edition. It eventually became something I enjoyed. Occasionally someone else would try but soon grumbles would start and I'd end up back in the chair.

So why did I quit? I think it was the fact that everyone wanted different things and thought it was my job to keep them happy.

When two players were trying to manipulate the antagonist or some official another would be complaining hes not hit anything in the last 15 minutes. One guy felt it was my job to keep him alive, he was a hero who would always over come, apparently stupid decisions shouldn't affect this. My vampire game had an unplanned player civil war, siding with rival factions. This almost doubled the real time needed to play and lots of swapping rooms and the losing side accused me of favouritism, despite choosing the weakerside and acting in a completely inept manner.

I could go on but it was enough to get me to hang up my dice, I attempted to swap sides of the table but no one else seemed to have the interest to replace me, except for a handful of epic level scuffles. Having missed out on the player time and believing the fun is in developing a charecter, this held no interest to me.

I'm a big believer in agency. I will throw players a lifeline but believe that in the end they stand or fall on their own decisions. Some of the most enjoyable moments in RP have been when the players completely derailed a story (My stories tend to be loose with the odd set piece and charecters with resources and motivation, I don't like end of the world epics) taking it in a direction I could never have imagined. Thats where the magic is.

Having said that, I no longer believe it is worth the headache

 

[Saxnot]

i fundamentally disagree with you that agency is the most important factor for fun in a tabletop rpg.
people play tabletop games for many different reasons. some may find the story most important, others may feel that a campaign is fun as long as they gain sacks of loot, or get to kill the bad guys

the point is this: while agency is certainly an important part of any campaign, the freedom of choice that a tabletop RPG offers may not be the most important factor to some. it's true you cant make everyone have fun, but you can't assume everyone will have fun as long as they are free to do what they want either.

sometimes these things conflict: i was once in a (admittedly inexperienced) group where one of the players decided that he would let his character go off on a ship away from the party. nobody liked this: the GM saw his campaign grinding to a halt as he was asked to facilitate this player, and the rest of the party was annoyed by his egotistical behaviour and the delay in the game this meant.
in the end, our DM told him to rejoin the party or abandon his character as he went off elsewhere. i don't think anyone can disagree this was the right decision.

in this instance, storytelling and the importance of the group as a whole (and deciding that we shouldn't indulge this person, even though this was less fun for him) became more important then the freedom to leave the tracks.

in the end, the most important measure for any style of DMing is how well they suit your group. there is no single golden formula, no ultimate, perfect way of running a game. you need to find a way that suits you and your group and provides the most fun for everyone. if you think that takes railroads, lay them, if you think that takes story, write it, if you think that takes freedom, provide it. in the end, it all depends on what you and the people you play with want the most.

 

[NicolasMarinus]

Great article, good analysis.

I agree with most of your points, including the fact that you shouldn't worry about gamers having fun. Make sure to throw some challenges their way and let them figure it out for themselves. They will.

If you worry too much about "fun", you wind up dumbing down the risk and therewith thrill and ultimately the whole experience. On a bad day, I do sometimes do this.

We have done away with rules though. We stick to calling it "storytelling". The agency and causality is attained by "being true to the story". If you can explain why your character would be able to scale that steep rockface by recounting a quick backstory (e.g. "as a kid he went rock climbing with his dad"), it'll give you an extra modifier.

We do still use dice for the element of chance.

 

[Andraste]

Great article, Alex. Interesting to see how your brain works after playing in your tabletop games for six years now.

To those concerned about storytelling and it's level of importance in tabletop, I think many of you are perhaps using the wrong parameters to judge, and therefore, disagree with Alex's statements. I remind you he is suggesting the four functions of a GM, not the four most important facets of tabletop RPGs.

I'd say, and I bet Alex would agree, that storytelling is one of the top three most important facets of RPGs, progression of character and fun (hey, there's the other point of contention!) being the other two. These are really un-rankable, as it varies from player to player, group to group. Each player has his own play style (see <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test>Bartle Test) and his own personal "most important aspect" of games (insert the endless graphics v. gameplay v. story debate here), and those individuals, of course, affect whole group dynamics. A GM has to be prepared to handle each of these players and groups, and Alex's very effective way of doing this is by giving players agency, or room to do the things that float their individual boats.

But what Alex is talking about in this article is the four functions of a GM. And of those, I'd agree that storytelling is last because as a GM, your players can (and will!) help you with story. The first three - judging, world builder, adversary are uniquely within the court of the GM and therefore logically rank higher as a function for a GM.

 

[Archon]

Great article, Alex. Interesting to see how your brain works after playing in your tabletop games for six years now.

I hope I haven't given away any secrets!

But what Alex is talking about in this article is the four functions of a GM. And of those, I'd agree that storytelling is last because as a GM, your players can (and will!) help you with story. The first three - judging, world builder, adversary are uniquely within the court of the GM and therefore logically rank higher as a function for a GM.

Thank you! I could not have said it better myself.

 

[mearls]

Very good point about creating an environment for fun vs. creating fun. It's a subtle but very useful distinction.

Many issues with railroading, fudging, and other cases where the DM runs interference for the players come down to taking too many cues from books, movies, and comics. In a book, an author can get away with putting the main character in a destroy-the world-or-save-it situation. After all, the author controls the final outcome. When a DM paints himself into such a corner, it's far too tempting to nudge the game in one direction or the other.

For an RPG, it's better to push both extreme results a little bit toward the middle. Find ways that both success and failure can branch the game out in new directions.

If the PCs toss the One Ring into Mount Doom, maybe the ancient, evil spirit trapped in the ring breaks free and promises to wreak havoc in the future. If the characters screw up and the ring ends up in Sauron's hands, it's time to rally the survivors and wage a guerrilla war against the dark lord.

When you avoid absolute outcomes, you dodge a lot of the situations where railroading and fudging start to look like good ideas.