Mendedwall's comment on Intimacy made me think of this thread, which has taken off on the boards. The 'four hour backstory guy' clearly had invested heavily in his character. Seems like a strong example of the intimacy Mendedwall mentions.
@slaunyeh: I do think, because of the actions usually taken in an RPG (lots of killing, stealing, etc), they are more likely to leave resonations with someone than a lot of other hobbies. Not guaranteed, but If I play Age of Conan every night for a week, it would likely have a different effect on me than if I watch pixar movies for a week.
I would hazard that rpgs as a hobby actually run a smaller risk of knocking you off balance, since the activity requires imagination. Imagination goes hand in hand with empathy, indeed it is the very basis for empathy. If you are an empathic person, you understand better how your actions affect others. IIRC the existing data shows that Rpg hobbyists have a slightly lower frequency of committing violent crime than the general population.
I would be inclined to agree with you Sissyl. Though I do want to mention, and, perhaps, make the caveat, that there are a number of people who play this game that are almost entirely devoid of imagination. I've had a couple players go through the club I run at school throughout the years, whose most active participation in imagination is "which sword can I wield that does the most damage." This is not a joke. I have a player right now, that comes in just about every morning and only wants to talk about eeking out the maximum amount of damage his level 1 character can do. He's having fun, so I don't discourage him, but I do tend to try and steer things towards a much more character immersive direction whenever possible.
Also I wanted to fix the link from my previous post: dead or alive. Not sure how that got screwed up, but here's the correct link.
Now I need to go and read that thread about the four hour back story. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can look these statistics up. Roleplayers commit fewer crimes, attempt suicide less, succeed at it less, and in all other ways are more upstanding citizens, per capita, than their non-player peers. Those are mathematical facts.
There is no psychologist of any repute who will with a straight face tell you that anybody influenced so by a roleplaying game, television show, film, or book, was not already predisposed to do whatever stupid thing he did, whether or not he encountered the thing society has ignorantly pointed to as the "cause" of his behavior. We do not kill people because of movies. We kill people after a long bout with serious mental illness following lifelong influences from our parents and other authority figures, usually involving abuse, and possibly mental health issues that may have been afflicting us since birth (or even those that may be congenital).
Finally, the FBI no longer investigates charges involving the so-called Satanic Conspiracy, or the supposed wickedness of roleplayers with any seriousness at all. They got their fill of it after finding ZERO viable connection between the games and the crimes over ten+ years of investigations. I have a close friend whose cousin is an agent, and his official "unofficial" stance is that the notion that games influence behavior is 100% bunk.
Just so you feel better.
@Brunwald - There are studies on both sides. And both sides dismiss the other (reminds me of the tobacco wars).
And I feel fine. Thanks.
This is several months after the fact (just reading the thread), but I think the complaint on Mar 14
But I just can't get around the feeling that too many "official" options cheapens the game. When paizo puts it out, it has a stamp of 'inclusion' that a third party product doesn't.
needs to be considered in the context of "Gary Gygax’s 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery: Step Four (Know the Genre)." Even from the beginning, D&D and AD&D have been "kitchen sink" games (Blackmoor, Myrlund, the crashed starship in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, etc.) instead of "pure" single-genre games.
This was 1) very much in the spirit of pulp fantasy that inspired Gary Gygax and 2) broadened the appeal of the game beyond a specific literary setting, even one as popular as Tolkien's Middle Earth. Yes, early D&D/AD&D drew on Tolkien for inspiration (including a really bizarre lawsuit), but never limited itself to just one author. Pathfinder's plethora of options just makes it easier, IMO, to have characters "fit" in a specific genre without needing as much retrofitting or custom rules.
The issue with characters who don't match the genre of a specific campaign (like the tiefling gunslinger and the aasimar samurai) is not a game problem as much as a player problem. The issue is not that the game provided an official rules option (1st Ed AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide had rules for guns and the 1st Ed A&D Oriental Adventures hardcover had samurai, ninja, and rules for creating martial arts styles), but that players are trying to play in one genre when the GM is trying to run a game based on another; the players are not applying Step Four.
Actually a tiefling gunslinger and an aasimar samurai could work very well together in a campaign that had planar travel and the interaction between multiple cultures as important themes. It may not be your cup of tea, but the Planescape setting was fairly popular in 2nd Ed AD&D.
An experiment with three groups:
Group A: sat in a room with a piano, but didn't interact with it at all, read a book, talked, etc.
Group B: sat in the room with the piano taking lessons.
Group C: sat in the room awith the piano and visualized themselves playing it.
On brain scans, group A saw no change. Group B saw definite changes in neural structure. Group C saw identical changes as group B, but to a lesser extent (changes in the same places and inthe same manner).
I don't think this directly applies to roleplaying, we aren't visualizing our selves for one, but just thinking about things can impact your brain's structure.
@slaunyeh: I do think, because of the actions usually taken in an RPG (lots of killing, stealing, etc), they are more likely to leave resonations with someone than a lot of other hobbies. Not guaranteed, but If I play Age of Conan every night for a week, it would likely have a different effect on me than if I watch pixar movies for a week.
Sure. If you want to compare Age of Conan to Toy Story then one is inherently more violent than the other. I don't think killing stuff in Age of Conan is inherently more dehumanizing than watching Die Hard or listening to Barbie Girl on the radio (grr, murder!). Perhaps unless you have trouble separating fantasy from reality.
...in which case I will just back away slowly. :p
But seriously, playing a troll slayer in an RPG isn't going to make you any more or less likely to think killing your neighbour is all right. If you do, that was probably there all along, no matter what you did for a hobby.
So yes, unhinged people are going to be unhinged by stuff. I hope they are going to seek help before random stuff trigger that.
Reading ahead for the next couple of entries, this particular topic is the last of the steps that Gygax really goes in depth on. In discussing alignments, he again touches on the difference between real (player) life and character life:
It is neither wrong nor condemnable to act the part of a character who by the social and cultural standards of our society is bad, evil, or
wrong. When all is said and done, games are not reality or actual life. It makes as much sense to vilify an actor for playing the role of a villain as it does to say that a participant in a game who has a PC whose moral standards cannot be called good is engaging in some form of wrongdoing.
Master role-playing gamers easily separate the difference between play and reality. In fact, even novices can do so without much difficulty.
As far as what I'll just call "influence" regarding this topic, a Christian who reads the Bible and tries to live his life based on what it says, is going to have a different viewpoint than someone who doesn't. I don't bludgeon people with my faith like a morningstar, so I won't go on about it here. That's not what this thread is about.
Bear in mind I've said throughout it "can" be an influence, not that it definitely is. As I said in the OP, some RPGers say it's 100% rubbish (Bruunwald's post was such) and I don't take that position.
Next step by Friday afternoon (I hope).
An experiment with three groups:
Group A: sat in a room with a piano, but didn't interact with it at all, read a book, talked, etc.
Group B: sat in the room with the piano taking lessons.
Group C: sat in the room awith the piano and visualized themselves playing it.
On brain scans, group A saw no change. Group B saw definite changes in neural structure. Group C saw identical changes as group B, but to a lesser extent (changes in the same places and inthe same manner).
I don't think this directly applies to roleplaying, we aren't visualizing our selves for one, but just thinking about things can impact your brain's structure.
And Group D took an axe to the piano....
@Dragonchess Player - Had to go back and re-read the post you referenced. I've actually softened on the 'too much product' idea a bit, but not totally.
I'm starting up my first PbP as a GM. And, except for feats, I limited everything to the Core Rulebook. It's not mixed genres I don't like (though gunslingers do get my goat): it's just too much to keep track of.
Urban Ranger is my favorite class to play. But it's going to be enough work to keep track of the classes/races/rules just from the Core Rulebook. Without familiarizing myself with Advanced Players Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Advanced Race Guide, Ultimate Equipment Guide (which I like) et al. It's just too much. Maybe if I GMed for a living.
Just adding more and more to the rules seems to dilute the product.
Gygax stresses knowing the rules (I think there's an entire chapter coming up on that topic). The PRD is a PHENOMENAL resource: kudos to Paizo for providing it free. But as they continue to add the rulebooks to it, it gets harder and harder to know the rules of the system.
I do remember thinking Barrier Peaks was 'weird' because it had aliens in it, though.
To everyone who is posting, Thanks. I wanted to present Gygax's precepts because he invented the game (along with Arneson). I don't agree with everything I post from him.
But I like the commentary and thoughts people are sharing in response to Gygax's ideas.
This is in a current thread someone posted for a game they're going to be in. The party makeup:
TN Dwarf Inquisitor of Urgathoa (He's a dwarf with a scythe, he loves it). Magic Domain (for the ability to toss his scythe like a boomerang)
CN Elven Bladebound Magus (He wanted to play a fighter/mage, so he settled on magus, and when I told him about the bladebound archetype, he got super hyped about having his own talking sword)
TBA Demonspawn Tiefling Sorcerer, heading into Dragon Disciple at level 6.
TBA TBA Archery Ranger (He's been busy with a project for school, so he's not as active as the rest of us).
Then there's me and one other person who are both still mulling it over. The setting is urban, so also unfortunately I won't be able to make a Barbarian Mammoth Rider.
The kind of game I hate (I'm not running or playing it, so it's not my deal: I get it). But to me, the type of silliness that comes out of the plethora of rules and "stuff" that has been a topic in this thread.
With the next topic being group-related, this strikes me as the twitter equivalent of RPG 'Look at me. Look at how outrageous my character is.'
Sometimes even the core rulebook can present too many options depending on the needs of the setting. I really think the character option "bloat" is much more a condition of the GM's imagination of the setting, which can be a tangible entity, but many times the collective conscious of the table provides a diverse set of boundaries for the "reality" of the setting. Having said that, I encourage players to explore strange options for race, and archetypes. I find that the more multi-layered a character is, the more a player is willing to play that character as a person. This, of course, means that when I encourage exploration of options, it is for the joy it will bring to the story, as well as helping a player optimize. If a player is only ever exploring race and class combinations so that they can "win," I'll probably ask them to find a different table.
Completely in agreement with that. The core rulebook is enough for bloat. It is a rather typical event that when you start up a campaign, ALL the players want to play nonhumans, usually all of them different races. It gets very old very fast. It feels like the youth gangs from 80s movies, with all ethnicities represented as part of the pro-social message. To deal with issues of different racial outlooks, there needs to be some kind of baseline. Also, not every campaign gets better for the inclusion of monks, especially not since one of my players always wants to play one. So I have to delve into the exotic backgrounds, with characters having traveled thousands of miles before the campaign starts. And if I say I don't want monks, I get questioned because "it's a core class".
Gary Gygax’s 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery
Step Six - Know Your Team’s PCs and Those Who Play Them
Note: Italics are quotes by Gygax, contained in the book, Role Playing Mastery.
The only way to get along in a group is to be familiar with the other members of the group. Take the time to learn about the other PCs and the players who control them, so that you can understand and appreciate their intentions and methods and, in so doing, become a more useful and integral part of the group yourself.
Gygax defines ‘Group in three ways’: The Playing Group (the players and GM); the Players Group (just the players) and the PC Group (the actual characters). I think the last is the one most of us consider when we talk about ‘the group.’
I think that this Step makes an interesting point in our “Look at Me” culture. Coupled with the rise of MMOs and PC RPGs, which are primarily about your character doing whatever it wants, focusing outward towards the group is a different idea. I only play via Play by Post: I haven’t RPGed around a table in nearly two decades. And there is certainly a remove from the other players in PbP that far exceeds any such one at the table.
Group operation and cooperation are at the nucleus of any RPG activity.
That is a foundational statement: ‘The nucleus’ of RPGing. In today’s twitter, facebook, pinterest, reality tv society, where we need to be the center of attention, RPG mastery tells you it’s not all about you; it’s about the group. You put the group first, not yourself (shades of Christianity, which says you are #2, not #1).
As a player, your analysis of your player group must direct your selection (and attendant play) of a PC.
So, a piece of this applies at the very outset of the game experience: character creation. I recently recruited for a game and one of the players specifically analyzed what classes people were submitting and commented on what might be needed. I’ve found that to be the exception in my PbP experiences. But that is partially due to the PbP selection dynamic being very different from the tabletop one.
Sitting around a table when the players are set and the party can easily be customized lends itself to the group considering “what is needed.” In a PbP when you are just hoping to get into the game with your best shot at a character, it’s up to the GM to come up with a good mix. It’s a bit moot for the player, since you don’t know who the GM is going to select (unless few players are applying), but it is still refreshing to see when it’s not uncommon for players to try and outdo each other with the most outrageous race/class combo (more shouting “look at me”).
But Gygax isn’t really talking about character creation so much (he addresses that topic in a separate section in the book). He’s talking about knowing the players and the characters so that the group can function at peak capability during gaming sessions.
You desire to facilitate your learning and the learning of the other participants as well.
One thing I’ve been impressed with in Pathfinder is the consistent willingness of folks to help new players along. In games and on the message boards, people offer advice and suggestions. And when somebody is harsh, they usually get reprimanded by other posters. Gygax takes it a step further and instructs players to continually learn (you, know, it’s about Mastery) and help the group learn as well. He mentions throughout the book that Mastery is a continual, ongoing process. The learning is obvious when we start out: but for Mastery, learning never ends.
At the root of this Step is the idea that the potential actions your character takes need to be evaluated in light of the entire group. In a game I’m currently running, a character has taken a potential werewolf under his protection. The group is first level, they’re in a forest full of werewolves and they’re bucking a group that hunts werewolves. I’m not saying his good-aligned character took the wrong action. But I feel safe in saying he did not at all consider the short and long term effects on the group of this action. I haven’t decided how it’s going to work out, but it may well go quite poorly.
Another Gygax gem: Since all role-playing games require play group input and group creativity, the participants are vital to the game. This is because they actually create much of it, for each and every group must devise some of the material needed for ongoing play. Then as play sessions continue, the interaction of PCs and GM with the rules of the system builds further creation.
Neat point. In our MMO-dominated RPG world, where the content is provided and the players “go through” it, old school RPGing is a collaborative, creative process. Even in a purchased module, the GM can homebrew as much as he sees fit. And then, the actions of the group create whole new paths. I didn’t foresee the party adopting the potential werewolf. Now I’m reacting to that.
In looking at these little snippets, I’m not doing the book itself justice. Gary Gygax delves deeply into his subjects, like a party exploring Undermountain. In the Group chapter, he gets into the dynamics of regular veteran groups, fragmented regular veteran groups, the enthusiast-driven playing group and club gatherings. While it’s not all particularly relevant in today’s RPG environment, he put a lot of thought into what he’s saying. The sample below on group needs affecting PC selection is a good one to show how deeply he is going:
Even from a purely selfish standpoint, there is ample reason to allow group needs to strongly influence your decision-making process in the choice of a PC. Each player will, at least, be interested in amusement. Some will be actively seeking enjoyment on an ongoing basis. To a greater or lesser degree, personal factors (self-worth) will be part of each player’s goals and motivation. Approbation and success are desirable to everyone. If your PC brings more fun to the play session, assists in gaining approbation for all, and contributes to the success of the group, then you will be given rewards of both a personal and a game-related nature. Thus you will enjoy yourself more and your PC will be made more viable for ongoing play.
He devotes an entire chapter to ‘The Group,’ so there’s much more than what I’ve discussed here. But regarding Step 6, think, “it’s not about me.” A sentence near the end of the chapter puts it into context quite well: Mastery requires individual effort and group operation.
Ahhh Holmes, it is serendipitous that your post happens to coincide with one of the very first dissensions (no, that's too strong a word--let's call it a social ripple) at one of my tables. There's so much going on here, that, as many times before. I need to take it piece by piece.
First
The only way to get along in a group is to be familiar with the other members of the group. Take the time to learn about the other PCs and the players who control them, so that you can understand and appreciate their intentions and methods and, in so doing, become a more useful and integral part of the group yourself.
This quote, while on the surface seems to be just common sense, is so much more than that. Especially the part where he says, "Take the time to learn about the other PCs and the players who control them."
I'll tell you why this is so important. It makes an assumption. What assumption? The assumption that as a player at the table you already know your own PC! If the roleplaying master is asking you to stretch your mind and get to know the inner workings of other PCs and players at the table, we can, and should, assume he thinks it goes without saying that every player should know their own PC like the proverbial back of their hand.
I must tell you that in my more recent experience this is not always the case, and I do not have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times that players at my table have had to ask how an ability, spell, or feat worked. Let alone younger players asking, "so what can I do?"
This link is to another poster on the boards that has a slim but excellent set of rules for the social contract of gaming. I've placed them on the Obsidian Portal for all my campaigns, and yet it seems some players choose not to read them. I've referred people many times to the fact that the first five rules on this list are rules for ANY game, not just a roleplaying game. Which means that the very first of his rules that applies specifically to roleplaying is essentially: "Know Thyself!" Again, this seems like common sense, but you might be surprised to learn how many players come to a table without having done any studying of their own PC.
Does four blocks of text sufficiently display how bothersome this is for me? If not, here's a fifth. As a GM we put in countless hours of preparation time. I won't even detail what we all do; GMs know all the hard work they put in. It would seem only considerate that every player at the table would put in some preparation of their own and come to the table knowing their own abilities, and further as Gygax suggests, knowing their comrades abilites, and the players who play them as well. A LOT of stutter-step gaming could be prevented with just an ounce or two of player preparation.
As I said, I post the above linked rules to the "library" of every campaign, and I suggest that every player read them. In the future I think I'm going to start bringing a printed copy to the table and making them read them, out loud. In addition to those rules I also make every player fill out a survey so that I can collect pertinent data on their expectations of the campaign. If anyone would like to see those surveys just let me know. I've put them to good use in the past, and they've helped me figure out how to "GM to the middle" of any group.
All of this I do to try and encourage what Gygax himself assumes, and then suggests: know thyself, know thy group (both their personalities, and their characters).
Which brings me to point number two. I'm going to round up several of Gygax' words as quoted by Holmes here.
1.Group operation and cooperation are at the nucleus of any RPG activity. 2.As a player, your analysis of your player group must direct your selection (and attendant play) of a PC. 3.You desire to facilitate your learning and the learning of the other participants as well. 4.Since all role-playing games require play group input and group creativity, the participants are vital to the game. This is because they actually create much of it, for each and every group must devise some of the material needed for ongoing play. Then as play sessions continue, the interaction of PCs and GM with the rules of the system builds further creation.
Emphasis is mine there, obviously. If you boil all that down to brass tacks you get essentially three main ideas: 1. You're playing a game that requires multiple players - this will require a level of cooperative (key word) desire (another key word). Every player should come to the table with the mentality that they are a small part of a larger whole, and that their place in that whole is to facilitate optimal group efficiency. As Holmes so clearly points out, if any one member of the group (I'm looking at you half-orc barbarians) wants to have the continual spotlight, and treats the other players as handbags to their own destiny, the game can quickly become not fun, and slide down the slippery slope into bickering, infighting, and dissensions. Now, is it the GM's job to make sure that every player has a chance to shine? Of course! But! it is also the job of every player to make sure that they are facilitating everyone's enjoyment, and optimal group efficiency. I'll explain that this way. Let's say a group comes to a trapped door in a dungeon. Could the barbarian just smash through the trap, and absorb the damage like a good little damage sponge? Sure, but why not let the group's rogue take 20 on the disable check, and get it out of the way for you. To many reading this, that will seem like common sense, but I can tell you from experience, that selfish players do selfish things, and sometimes do them under the guise of "helping the group." Group efficiency means that every player let's each PC at the table fill their role when that time comes.
This brings me to point two from the multi-quoted section: The game is what everyone at the table makes it. Mr. Gygax says, learn the game, facilitate the learning of others in the game, and understand that by playing the game you all (players and GM alike) are creating the world. If you play the game in such a way as to make significant roleplaying moments paltry and more likely to be hand-waved, then that's the turn your game will end up taking. Etcetera, ad nauseum. Whatever you do routinely, will become the routine, and since we are all creatures of habit, forming unfun gaming habits will stick, just like smoking.
This segues directly into what I see as the third essential point from those quotes: The world is what you make it. Each game has a setting, and even if you are playing in a published and established setting, you are still, as a group, creating the world as you play. Is it a world of robust, complex, flawed "human beings?" Or is it a simple tapestry of cookie-cutter characters, wading through a cliche fantasy environment? The key here is that the players must take some onus for what it is. In my experience even the most dedicated of theatrical GMs can only do so much. As the players play, eventually, so will the GM facilitate. If a player finds a setting to be too paper thin, they should first look to themselves to flesh it out with whimsical, detailed, and intricate roleplaying. Perhaps by doing so they'll inspire everyone else at the table.
Now on to Gygax' last quote.
Even from a purely selfish standpoint, there is ample reason to allow group needs to strongly influence your decision-making process in the choice of a PC. Each player will, at least, be interested in amusement. Some will be actively seeking enjoyment on an ongoing basis. To a greater or lesser degree, personal factors (self-worth) will be part of each player’s goals and motivation. Approbation and success are desirable to everyone. If your PC brings more fun to the play session, assists in gaining approbation for all, and contributes to the success of the group, then you will be given rewards of both a personal and a game-related nature. Thus you will enjoy yourself more and your PC will be made more viable for ongoing play.
How simple and full of common sense this seems. Yet how often it is completely ignored. When playing a game where both a person's personality, and their imagined character's personality are the integral parts of how the game operates, one must look to many different dynamics for the "success" of the group. Gary says it succinctly and all but perfectly. Everyone might be at the table for different reasons, everyone might want different things, ultimately, out of the game, but guess what? Your personal desires, even the seemingly selfish ones (I want to overcome all challenges), can and should help the group. Everyone's success triumphs or fails based off of everyone's success. I know that sounds redundant, but it is nonetheless the truth. If everyone is to be successful as a group, then everyone must also be successful as an individual (both a player and their PC), and if everyone is to be successful individually, we should all be actively working to help each other find individual success. Wow! I think I just summed up this TLDR post in that last sentence. Ah well, I'm obviously a man of many words.
Thanks for another though provoking post Holmes.
The only way to get along in a group is to be familiar with the other members of the group. Take the time to learn about the other PCs and the players who control them, so that you can understand and appreciate their intentions and methods and, in so doing, become a more useful and integral part of the group yourself.This quote, while on the surface seems to be just common sense, is so much more than that. Especially the part where he says, "Take the time to learn about the other PCs and the players who control them."
I'll tell you why this is so important. It makes an assumption. What assumption? The assumption that as a player at the table you already know your own PC! If the roleplaying master is asking you to stretch your mind and get to know the inner workings of other PCs and players at the table, we can, and should, assume he thinks it goes without saying that every player should know their own PC like the proverbial back of their hand.
I must tell you that in my more recent experience this is not always the case, and I do not have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times that players at my table have had to ask how an ability, spell, or feat worked. Let alone younger players asking, "so what can I do?"
I understand where you're coming from when the problem is someone who's been at the table for ten years and never bothered to learn the rules, but I hope you wouldn't hold that 'younger player' who seems to have just rolled up his/her first character to the same standard...
I understand where you're coming from when the problem is someone who's been at the table for ten years and never bothered to learn the rules, but I hope you wouldn't hold that 'younger player' who seems to have just rolled up his/her first character to the same standard...
Well... yes, and no.
If we're talking literally about a player that just rolled up a character and begins play with them right away, no, of course I won't hold them to that standard. However, if we've had a few play sessions, and you still come to the table not knowing what your character's spells (I'm speaking specifically here about those spells that the character has had prepared each session) do, or how your character's particular class abilities work, then yes, I'm going to hold you to a standard of PC knowledge. Yes, it is a game, and yes, we are all here to have fun, but what some players don't realize is that by not being prepared, they are actually ruining other people's fun.
I've had a veteran player of mine, in the wake of the social ripple I mentioned, suggest something, and I'm thinking seriously about implementing it, after a table discussion of course so that everyone knows the motivation. He suggested that if a player doesn't know the mechanical application of their character's spells or abilities they don't get to use them. This will facilitate me answering the question, "What can I do?" with the answer, "Whatever abilities your character has that you understand how to mechanically apply." That makes the game a lot more crunchy, and possibly invites a lot more metagame, but when the metagame is being completely ignored, it can, as I mentioned, ruin other people's fun.
Also @thejeff, I completely agree that Gygax advice only applies to certain systems, but we need to remember that Gygax, more than likely, only ever considered there to be one system, his system. Therefore his advice is going to be about how best to play his game.
True, true, not in its entirety, and not all elements, but much of what 3.X/PF is, it is because it is a direct descendent of his system. So, much of his advice will still apply to those games. I also think that looking through Holmes' explications of Gygax words shows that they can be, and are, without a doubt, pragmatic bits of wisdom.
Bit of a delay from the last post. I'm now running paralell PbPs: man, GMing takes a lot of time. Probably even more if you follow the precepts of Gygax's Mastering the Game...
Gary Gygax’s 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery
Step Seven - Know the campaign in which you play
Note: Italics are quotes by Gygax, contained in the book, Role Playing Mastery.
This is different from knowing the genre, because the game campaign devised by the GM is a unique entity unto itself. Accept and assimilate all the information given to you by the GM about the campaign world, and always strive to learn more. Knowledge is power, and more important, knowledge leads to success.
I don't know about this one so much. When most folks just played in Greyhawk, or a Tolkien world or Judges Guild's Wilderness setting, maybe this was more relevant. Or perhaps I should say, more enriching for everyone. But beyond the goal and the obstacles, do the players today have to know everything about the campaign?
I'm running a campaign set in the Darkmoon Vale region, using a couple 3PP modules, a WotC third edition mod and the Guide to Darkmoon Vale from Paizo. I've provided background on factions, characters, etc and other non-Golarion stuff in the Campaign Guide..
I don't know how much of this stuff the players really need to know. Now, in the sense of Mastery (Gygax's version, with the capital 'M'), knowing every bit of the campaign guide will probably make you a better player. And knowing things from the guide (i.e., reading about the Silver Arrows could prove useful in the suspected werewolf encounter) could come into play; but a deep knowledge of Andoran is neat, but perhaps not too important.
The primary source for campaign detail is, of course, the game itself. The secondary sources are the author’s work and whatever else the game designer utilized in creating the role game. Beyond those, we have tertiary sources-works that the author was influenced by and used in his writing, and other material the game designer used. The pyramid gets broader as we go deeper; in some cases, a really energetic student of a game based on a single author’s work may benefit from examining the works that influenced the author’s and designer’s sources, and so on.
Gygax talks about studying the sources that the campaign designer used. I recall the old D&D box sets having a list of influences, which was sort of a "must read fantasy/history" list for the day. For a Tolkien game, he says that the aspiring Master should read about Tolkien so that he can then read what Tolkien read.
He does mention that the reading and learning is likely to be fun, which is a good point. You might read the Iliad as background for a campaign involving a siege. Turns out the Trojan Horse ploy might not come into play, but you probably enjoyed reading a great work of literature.
This is a nice summation: Knowledge of the real world is used to design all [RPG] games, and thus it is valuable in any game milieu.
Gygax has a chapter on Game Design itself, which is a related but different topic.
(If you have ANY interest in designign an adventure, campaign, etc, THIS is fantastic.
As a player, I like to be buried in the fluff. I recently joined a play by email game because it was set in Ustalav. I love that setting and read the pieces on it from Rule of Fear, the Carrion Crown players guide and the Inner Sea World Guide. It was fun and gave me a sense of atmosphere. But, except for my character background, it hasn't been useful yet.
It does make sense to learn as much about the campaign setting and doings as you can. And I LOVE campaign guide and history books. But I don't think it is a vital element.
Wow! I'm going to go off on a rant here, for two reasons: 1) I completely disagree with the mentality here, and 2) some of Gygax' language here really irks my sensibilities about the purpose of the game.
So first, on the completely disagreeing... I understand the subtleties of language, I happen to be a man that deals in semantics as part and parcel of his career. So I understand that Gygax might not have meant "read the published module" when he says know the campaign you're in. After reading the follow up comments though, it certainly seems as though Gygax would absolutely condone such behavior. To be fair Gygax says the GM is the first source of campaign knowledge, and with that I agree. The GM is the player's window to the world. After that initial discussion though Gygax freely condones looking to the Nth degree of sources that may have influenced the creation of a campaign setting. The GM read the Wheel of Time series? You'd better read it too, because there might be elements of the campaign in those pages. The GM once read the title of an article in Kobold Quarterly? You'd best read that article because it could have influenced how he created the world. Yes, I'm being hyperbolic, but when Gygax specifically mentions looking into "tertiary" sources, and the depth of the knowledge "pyramid," I'm not sure the hyperbole is that far off.
What's the problem with that you might ask? Just this, knowing everything there is to know about a campaign whilst you are embroiled in it is fine, if that knowledge doesn't breach the fourth wall into metagame, at least in my opinion. I've seen plenty of discussion on the boards about how a player reading a published module or AP before a campaign starts can wreak all kinds of havoc. Thankfully I've never had to deal with it myself, and my players are very happy just gleaning their knowledge of the world from me during play.
I don't want to confuse people and make it sound like I don't want my players reading setting books. I would be more than happy if some player wanted to borrow my Inner Sea World Guide, and peruse it. The difference there is, those setting books are almost always vague enough to provide intrigue, but not detailed enough to provide any campaign spoilers. Paizo always does a good job, too, of making sure GM level knowledge is separate from player level knowledge. Holmes mentioned the Guide to Darkmoon Vale. That is a great book that has an entire section labeled "Secrets" with a big spoiler warning that reading further could ruin your fun if you are not the GM. Based off of the few quotes here, and my inferred intent, I would say Gygax would encourage players to read those sections as well, since, after all, "knowledge leads to success."
Which brings me to point two of my rant. Buck-buck-brawk?! You said what? That last phrase is eerily similar to saying "knowing everything you can know about the game will help you 'win.'" I hate that mentality. It's one of the things I make sure to address with any new player to the game right off the bat. You cannot win this game. Sometimes characters die, that doesn't end the game, nor should it end your fun. You "win" this game if every time you sit down to play you have fun. Now, I get it, every campaign has an objective, and from that perspective a player can win, and not dying is a certain type of success, but in my experience those successes are much more dependent on a player's knowledge of their character, their party, and, completely separate from the mechanics or fluff of the game, their ability to creatively problem solve.
Does knowing that a troll has regeneration help you survive? Of course, but does the player knowing a troll has generation necessarily mean that their character also knows? NO! This is the part of the metagame that I seem to be constantly addressing. It leads to things like players asking, "how many hit points does he have left?" Which of course always gets answered with an emphatic, "Metagame! Your character has no concept of what a 'hit point' is, and knowledge of how many hit points an enemy has left is not something you as a player need to know."
I'm glad that Holmes disagreed on the grounds that much of the implied kind of knowledge is irrelevant. I'll take it a step further, and say, not only, in many cases, is it irrelevant, it can be down right detrimental. Let the GM be the window to the world. Read a setting book occasionally, if it enriches your experience, but remember that what you as a player know about a region, is completely separate from what your character knows about a region. If you as a player know something and you know that you want your character to know it too, it leads to strange interactions where the player is making the character ask way too detailed of questions in order to illicit the response they know should be forthcoming. That kind of breach of the fourth wall isn't success, it's messy.
[/rant]
Sorry for the delay. I started to post this last week and got sidetracked.
My initial thought to Mendedwall was that Gygax probably didn't mean you should read the adventure. But he doesn't pull up much short of that, if at all...
Gary Gygax’s 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery
Outline of Study for Mastery
Note: Italics are quotes by Gygax, contained in the book, Role Playing Mastery.
This outline is at the end of the primary chapter covering the points of the current step (7) that we are discussing. I've included it in full, which makes a long entry! I'll have another post that talks about some of Mendedwall's comments, using some of Gygax's Outline comments.
Outline of Study for Mastery
I. Acquisition and perusal of primary source material of the game milieu
Example 1. Because of the broad general background upon which the AD&D game was based, this activity would cover familiarization with the entire set of books that are the game system-at the least, the Dungeon Masters Guide, the Players Handbook, and one or more of the compendiums of monsters (Monster Manual, Monster Manual II, Fiend Folio tome). Other sources that might be used, depending on the amount of detail and the type of game milieu desired, include the Legends & Lore book, Dungeoneer’s Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival Guide, and Oriental Adventures.
Example 2. For the 007 game, this would mean the acquisition and perusal of the basic game system plus the accessory materials, including the Q Manual and the various adventures designed for the system (Octopussy, Goldfinger, etc.).
II. Acquisition of closely related materials
Example 1. For AD&D gaming, this includes both acquisition of at least some of the works listed in the Inspirational & Educational Reading Appendix of the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, plus the acquisition and study of another fantasy role-playing game in the genre.
Example 2. For the 007 game, the aspiring expert would read all the James Bond books written by Ian Fleming and would likewise get a copy of a similar game (such as the Top Secret game). Beyond this, helpful information can be found in books and articles about Fleming’s works; in factual accounts about spies and espionage; and in other novels in the espionage genre.
III. Immersion in the hard core of adventure gaming
A. Subscribing to at least one professional magazine
B. Joining a national association of role garners
C. Attending one or more conventions devoted to the hobby of game playing in general and RPGs in particular
D. Optionally, joining an active local club and/or subscribing to at least one amateur magazine
IV. Determination to use leisure-time activities to broaden your base of understanding of RPGs and the particular milieu you have chosen to specialize in.
A. Use of reading opportunities
B. Acquisition of printed material (fiction, history, maps, etc.)
C. Viewing related television programs
D. Selecting and viewing related films
E. Using any other sources
1. Travel
2. Museums
3. Information from experts
V. Development of a research collection
A. Collection of printed materials
1. Books and pamphlets
2. Periodicals
3. Maps
4. Games
B. Collection of all manner of other associated materials
Below is the last paragraph of the chapter and comes just after the Outline. I am again reminded that he's talking about MASTERY: not just being good or having fun. But sort of like achieving RPG knighthood. I'm not sure I did this much work on my Master's Thesis!
Also, keep in mind I'm pulling out bits and pieces. I'm trying to keep them in context, and I'm pretty sure I'm not framing his quotes to further an agenda, since I agree with him sometimes and disagree others. A lot of this chapter struck me as more fitting for GM Mastery, but I've read it over and he seems to be talking about the player, not the GM. So, here's his summary:
The path to role-playing mastery begins with searching and researching. First you must search within yourself and examine the field of available RPGs, to determine which genre or genres to concentrate on. Then you must research-find out all you can about the area(s) you want to explore. Knowledge is the key, and your knowledge of a genre and its attendant background material must be so deep and so broad that you feel at home within that genre, just as much as you feel at home in the world in which all of us actually live. In this case, familiarity does not breed contempt but quite the opposite: familiarity leads to fun and fulfillment, and both of those benefits will be yours in full measure if you immerse yourself in the role-playing game hobby and take advantage of all it has to offer.
Woof! Just, woof! I get it, Mastery, but I'm not sure anyone, save a Shaolin monk, would devote that much time to any one endeavor of their life. I mean we're talking about a kind of obsessed devotion that usually only accompanies serial killers, or celebrity stalkers. It is supposed to be a game, yes? A game for fun, right? I think his quote: familiarity leads to fun and fulfillment is right on, but come on! He's talking about something way beyond familiarity, what he's talking about seems more like complete lifestyle domination. If you aren't eating, sleeping, and breathing the genre and the game, you'll never be a master. I've had some pretty darn good players at my tables over the years, and, I know for a fact, none of them have ever even thought about putting in this level of devotion.
I wonder, is this a statement about the evolution of the hobby? Or is it simply a goal that few people ever even dream of desiring to reach?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's certainly not a goal of mine. In fact, it reminds me of one of the reasons I quit the martial arts school I had been going to (the big reason was moving away for college).
That is, the owner of the school flat out, explicitly told us that our correct list of priorities was:
1. Work
2. Martial Arts
3. Family
And I'm pretty sure the only reason work was #1 was because that allowed us to pay him; he may even have indicated as much (this is 12 years ago now).
Gygax was describing where you should eat, sleep, and breathe your RPG. Far too much for my tastes. I'm not willing to treat a hobby as a job, and that's basically what he's asking. My job takes up enough time. To be that immersed in a hobby would push out everything else. He's describing investment in a game to the exclusion of all else, and well past the point where diminishing marginal returns kick in.
I'll happily not go for Gygaxian roleplaying mastery, and instead focus on the three (or four, if you count a joke one) settings I'm working on, and a game system, and on the ability to think and act in-character.
I pretty much agree with PhelanArcetus. I think that Gygax's concept of Mastery is viable for a very, very small number of people.
Though, I suspect that there are younger folks spending the amounts of time required for Gygaxian mastery on playing an MMO...
I usually work on these posts during my lunch time at work. However, GMing two games has largely supplanted that. And, I am chagrined to say, I started playing Age of Conan a few months ago and that is one addictive game! Talk about eating up late night home time...
Regarding Mendewalls' comments on Step Seven, I don't know that I agree with the "GM is the player's window to the world" idea. Now, this may be related to enjoyment, rather than Mastery.
I'm in a PbE(mail) game of Carrion Hill. I have NOT read the module. However, I do own the Carion Crown AP and Player's Guide and the campaign setting, Ustalav: Rule of Fear. I love that part of Golarion and reading those items have enriched my experience playing the module. They certainly contributed to my feeling of a 'Ravenloftish' environment. I also drew on that in creating my character, who is based in the city of Carrion Hill.
Now, do I need to know all that for Mastery? I'm more "in tune" with the setting, but that may or may not come out in my play. It definitely adds to my enjoyment, though. Some info is off limits: the secrets section of the Darkmoon Vale guide that Mendedwall mentions is a good example. But generally, if it doesn't interfere with the module/campaign, I think it's okay. I don't think the GM has to be the (mostly) sole source.
As for reading the books the GM read, etc: to each his own. Who's got thta kind of time? I would play the Conan RPG because I love Robert E. Howard's works. But I don't think I'd go read Clark Ashton Smith or whatever else he did just to get a leg up.
As to the winning idea: wining means different things to different people. I'm flabbergasted that people would cheat in an RPG. But the foundational beliefs of my life differ from a lot of people and while I very much enjoy RPGing, it's not important enough to me that I would cheat at it. I do believe "fun" is the key goal to almost any recreational activity.
Sure, exercising to lose weight isn't necessarily fun: but health, not fun, is the main goal there. I was a serious Ultimate Frisbee player, competing at national and world championships. I aboslutely loved the game. If it hadn't been fun, I wouldn't have been so dedicated to it. I wanted to win every game, but it would have been a grind if it I didn't enjoy it. And grinding is what work is for!
I think determining what is a successful campaign/module is something to be determined at the start (even during recruitment). If the party is uber-focused on killing everything and getting the prize, it's going to be a certain type of game. And what they determine "fun" may be different than what the GM thinks. And as I said on another thread, if you're GMing a game you don't enjoy, you're wasting a piece of your life.
Personally, I can't see wanting to be a Master per Gygax's definition. I know more about Sherlock Holmes and the Bible than the average person, but to put the level effort he describes into a role playing game...
However, since that's the point of this book he wrote, we'll continue to examine it in the light of something somebody wants to achieve.
Having said that, that Outline of Study: whooboy!!
Up next is Step Eight:Understand the role of the game master and assist its fulfillment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've definitely seen people cheat in RPGs. Honestly, I can see two temptations for it.
First is the somewhat justifiable one: this is a pivotal moment, in plot or with the character at high risk of death. One where you're so invested in one outcome that you'd cheat to make sure it happens. (In a setting with no resurrection, I could see being tempted to cheat to keep my character alive and continue to progress his plot).
Second is the totally unjustifiable one: you just want to be the best. If the easiest way to be the best, glory hound the table, and so on, is to always roll very well, then you'll cheat to accomplish that. I've definitely played with a guy who did that, sadly (I'm not sure if he conveniently misunderstood rules, or honestly misunderstood them; on that front I lean towards honest mistake, but on the dice I'm sure he cheated).
I'm playing in Kingmaker right now. I want to read the modules, but I won't touch any of them until the campaign ends. In this case I mostly want to learn more about adventure design, and I have plenty of other modules to read, so I'm not desperate to do so. I flee from anything that looks like Kingmaker spoilers on these boards.
Another concern I don't think I mentioned with mastery is the distinction between player & character knowledge. There is a lot I don't know about Golarion that my wizard does. There is a lot I don't know about Eberron that my character in that campaign does. And sometimes it's information that has been mentioned to me as a player, but I've forgotten. The more mastery you expect out of your players as a GM, the more you would punish this sort of situation; I've had characters blunder badly because I as a player didn't know something the character did know, and the GM didn't bother to tell me until after the fact.
@Phelan - that's an interesting point because, to the best of my memory, the discussion has only gone the other way. 'Metagaming' wasn't a term back in the Gygax Era. And as I remember it, most players didn't have too many books/modules/supplements/etc. The DM was the guy who could afford to buy the module. Today, I order something from Paizo or a third party site at least once or twice a month. When I was a kid, riding my bike to Hobby Lobby and buying a Judges Guild module was a BIG deal!
So, I think players today are far more likely to know something their character shouldn't know in a game. And I think a lot of GMs will say they've run into that problem before.
However, a player not knowing something a character should know: that's different. And something I've never thought about.
Both 'knowledge problems' mentioned here could be part of the discussion for Step Nine, Role play your character fully and correctly.
This 51 minute interview is the first of a new series with Rob Kuntz. To anyone interested in the origin/early days of D&D, it is pretty informative.
Obviously it's the player's job to avoid metagaming. I think there's also an expansion of what's available, and of people wanting to GM. In fact, I think, on the whole, the rules-heavy framework of 3rd edition made GMing much easier to approach - while I am more experienced as a player now, I feel far less intimidated by GMing 3.5 or Pathfinder than I did when I was reading the 2nd edition rules.
Part of that is just rules familiarity, coming from having played only around a year of 2nd edition and playing various forms of 3rd edition from 2000 on. Parts are general confidence in myself (I would even be comfortable running 4th edition if I could think of a reason to do so). But I think the amount that is codified in the rules in 3rd edition, compared to second, and presumably first, makes a big difference here. And the notion of what the core set is.
Even on day one of 3.0, I was intending to buy the DMG and Monster Manual, items I'd never had any access to in 2nd edition. More recently, I subscribed to both modules and adventure paths, not because I necessarily want to run those specific adventures, but because reading professionally done adventures is a great way to get ideas and see how professionals do it. That's why I have so many adventure modules on my shelf - very few of them are likely to be run, at least directly.
The notion that GMing isn't something exclusively for the best of us, that it's accessible, plus the proliferation of material on the internet (including free adventure content and guides to help beginning DMs get started) means that a lot more people feel competent to GM. So they get the things a GM is expected to have, not just the player content, but the GM-only content as well. Nowadays most players have a monster manual or bestiary, and it's easy enough to access the content that you might even choose to read the module after the fact to find out what was going on or how a particularly brutal encounter was actually designed.
Now I've tried to be proactive - I've asked the Kingmaker GM to mention anything he thinks he might use, so I can avoid reading it. But let's say we have a communications failure. Maybe for some reason he decides to run the PFS scenario I read this week (which I'm interested in running as a one-shot). (This would be extra bad because there are at least two others who would overlap as players in this context.) I'll do my best to pretend, even to myself, that I don't know anything about the module content. That, plus a general consensus with the GM as to what's metagaming and what's not. What is common knowledge that any adventurer will know? (i.e. if someone says "that's a troll", do you just know fire is good against them, or do you need a knowledge check?) How genre-savvy might the PCs be?
That and remembering things. I tend to assume that my character knows a lot more about the world than I do. Especially if it's been two months since the last session, but twenty minutes in-world - just because I don't remember something shouldn't mean my character forgot.
A couple examples of poorly-handled PC knowledge:
First, a fighter type of mine, from a noble house, needed an intelligence check (since he didn't have knowledge (nobility and royalty)) to identify a house crest. Sounds reasonable, until we discovered that this wasn't just some other noble house, it was a house he specifically knew, and was investigating as the most likely party in assaulting his family. Taken slightly further, he might have needed an intelligence check to identify his own house crest. That I interpret as the GM forgetting that sometimes the character just knows something.
Second, in Eberron, a native of Sharn, with extensive dealings with law enforcement, as a member of the secret service, knew (I was told after the fact) that the phrase he used was a euphemism for the police to kill and rob those arrested. In this case, I think it was the GM inventing that euphemism after the fact to add a twist. This is based on the fact that I know the GM likes to throw twists and improvised monkey wrenches at us - I think it's more likely he created the problem after the fact, rather than not telling me that my intelligent character was being dumb.
This 51 minute interview is the first of a new series with Rob Kuntz. To anyone interested in the origin/early days of D&D, it is pretty informative.
Holmes that link is bad, it just took me to the messageboards. I've had that same problem in the past; it happens when you don't put the http:// in front of your url. I'd like to take a look at the interview if you can fix the link. Also I've been ruminating on some of the posts here for a few days and I'm currently cooking up a response. It's probably going to be a long one, and I probably won't even get it finished and posted until tomorrow. Just wanted to let you know I'm still very much engaged in this conversation, and I love the level of intellectual discourse.
Also Holmes:
Edit: Never mind about the link I saw the other post with a link that works.
Rob Kuntz Interview - Part One
And this one should work.
Got to listen to most of it: I think it's great.
@Phelan - nice post. I began playing in the seventies, but I only GMed for the first time last December. So, while I've read literally hundreds of RPG books and played a fair amount, I'm still training myself to think like a GM.
Beyond the standard 'spoiler for a specific player', I don't really think of 'what should a player know? yet. Something a player posts has prompted me down that path, but it isn't intrinsic yet. I think that aspect is a sign of good GMing (or dare I say, "GM Mastery"? That's another book!).
A suspected werewolf encounter was the early part of my current campaign. One of the players asked if it was a full moon recently. Is that player or character knowledge? It's the Darkmoon Vale, where werewolves are not uncommon. So I'd likely lean towards the character side. But those types of issues may be something we take for granted. I didn't think about it beforehand.
I love to read RPG adventures and supplements. And naturally, if something is really good (like Raging Swan's Retribution), I'd like to play it some day. But as you said about yourself, it's incumbent upon me as a player to not have my character take advantage of MY knowledge. Presumably, not everybody will be that 'honest' or good or whatever we want to call it. Some would abuse that knowledge. And that will probably have a negative impact on the game.
I would never read a module that I've signed on or expect to play. Just as I wouldn't stop reading modules because, some day I might end up playing one of them. I would rather play a module I haven't read if possible.
@Mendedwall. No problem: I know you're still in the thread. Since I temporarily killed this thread by not posting for a long time, I'm certainly not pointing fingers at anyone for intermittent posts.
So, I think players today are far more likely to know something their character shouldn't know in a game. And I think a lot of GMs will say they've run into that problem before.
That reminds me of a funny story. I was running a Dragonstar game years ago, and after an end session, one of the players leans over to me and said "I've read that scenario, but I tried not to let it affect the game."
I go "wait... what?"
I don't think I've read a published scenario in my life, so it must have been purely coincidence. But it was still kinda creepy.
That reminds me of a funny story. I was running a Dragonstar game years ago, and after an end session, one of the players leans over to me and said "I've read that scenario, but I tried not to let it affect the game."
I go "wait... what?"
I don't think I've read a published scenario in my life, so it must have been purely coincidence. But it was still kinda creepy.
You probably don't remember, but I wonder if you looked back over the session and tried to figure out if that player did anything that made you think, "Oh, maybe that was because they knew..."
I've read way more than I've played. But in large part because I love to read (I've still easily got a thousand books at home after the last thinning of the herd) and RPG materials can be pretty darn interesting.
The third edition Forgotten Realms campaign book was as imagination-inspiring as just about any novel I've read.
As a player, I tend to make a point of asking if I think my character should know something about what's going on. Of course, that relies on my having the expectation of character knowledge. And GMs generally do not volunteer that character knowledge, in my experience. So you probably have to be aggressive in asking to find out things that might be common knowledge or just a thing your character knows.
Another thing I'll add for modules. If you realize that your GM is running a module you've read or played before, it's probably wise to quietly let him or her know that you've seen this before, but are trying to not metagame. This gives the GM the opportunity to change the content (or replace it entirely) if not comfortable, and even to assist you in drawing the line on metagaming the situation.
Dot.
Granted, there was a long gap when I wasn't adding to the thread, but tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of the original post! And this is post # 95.
Just wanted to say thanks to all who have contributed to the thread so far. Hopefully you will continue to do so; and please mention it to anyone you think would be interested in Gygax's thoughts. The more perspectives and experiences brought into the mix, the better.
Discussion has remained civil and I've enjoyed reading the comments.
As I said somewhere along the way, if we get through this one in good shape, I'll tackle his other book, Master of the Game, on GMing.
Regarding Mendewalls' comments on Step Seven, I don't know that I agree with the "GM is the player's window to the world" idea.
I think you may have misunderstood the intent of what I was saying there Holmes. I didn’t mean that the GM is the only source players have to experience the world. What I meant was that players don’t get to see the immediate world of the campaign unless it is through the GM. Can they look through the Guide to Darkmoon Vale and have an idea of who the important NPCs are, and what the general landscape is like? Sure, but what they can’t see, except through the GM, is what is currently happening there, right now, in the campaign. This is why the GM is the window to the world.
For example: The guide says that Droskar’s Crag is one of the only active volcanos left in the Inner Sea (if I recall correctly). The players that read the guide would know that, but if the volcano is starting to spit up ash, smoke, and lava and local villagers are being evacuated for their safety, only the GM knows that. That’s information that he must give to the players, or their characters could suffer dire consequences.
I never meant for it to sound like I want to be the sole place players get their information, far from it. I love when my players take an interest in the setting, and background. I have a group now that all got very interested in the city their characters started in for a new campaign, and I sent them all a snippet from the actual module. It had a few very minor “spoilers.” Things like what magic items are for sale, and a few secret tidbits about various NPCs, but I figured those are all things their characters would know, or at least heard some scuttlebutt about. Thankfully these particular players have proved themselves to be very mature with how they handle those things. I wouldn’t do that for every player I currently GM for.
Now to address two things PhelanArcetus brought up: cheating, and character knowledge that exceeds player knowledge.
I’ll address the player/character knowledge divide first, because it segues well into the cheating. As Holmes so clearly demonstrated, the divide between player knowledge and character knowledge is almost always assumed to be a situation where the player knows more than the character. Thankfully PhelanArcetus gives great examples to prove that is not always the case. This is one of those difficult things a GM needs to constantly be aware of, and honestly one of the reasons I really like back stories. If a wizard studied his craft under the tutelage of a full assortment of wizards, he would have a universal knowledge, even though the character might be an evoker. Did a cavalier train under multiple trainers, one of which is a paladin? Then she would of course have some knowledge of undead and evil foes, etcetera, ad infinitum. Back stories don’t always give the answers to these kinds of questions, sometimes it’s answered by something as simple as the flavor of a class, or race. Sometimes though, these waters get very muddy, and in my experience there is nothing wrong with having an out of character discussion at the table with all those present to find out what a character might know that a player doesn’t. I have in fact had many conversations like that with various groups.
We’ve mentioned already what happens when the divide goes the other way. Sometimes it can look like cheating. Sometimes it actually is cheating. This is why it is so important for GMs to have a clear concept of the differences in knowledge between a player and their character. I have often had to say, at the table, in the middle of the game, “your character does not know that, and therefore would not act in that way.” Sometimes that’s simply oversight on the player’s part, a lack of experience, or a momentary lapse in separating the IC from the OOC. Sometimes, though, it is a player actively seeking an advantage for their character. That is cheating, at least in my estimation.
Cheating can take on many more looks. I’ve even had to deal with dice cheaters at the table. The roll it and quickly pick it up and look at it closely to determine what number it is (so no one else can see that it was a 5), dice cheaters. Most of those kinds of situations just require rule implementation, sad, unfortunate rule implementation, but a good rule about table etiquette usually takes care of most types of cheating. It’s that subtle knowledge divide that is the hardest to deal with on the fly, in game.
This is yet one more reason that remembering, as a GM, that you are the window into the campaign world for the players is so important. Would they recognize an NPC from a previous encounter? The GM has to let them know that, they can’t assume that just by mentioning a name the players will recognize, especially if the campaign has long stretches between meetings. This is just one example of what I was trying, apparently not as successfully as I thought, to convey about where “real” campaign knowledge comes from. A campaign is a living breathing entity. All the setting books in the world won’t ever replace the critical thinking machine that is the GM. This is why mastery is such an important topic to me. If I want my critical thinking machine to be at its best, so I can make those on the fly judgment calls, and rulings, I have to constantly hone my game knowledge, my setting knowledge, and my GM skills, most of which can, and in my opinion should, be worked on outside of the game, as much as in it.
Once again, just my 2cp.
@Mendedwall - Clearly, I did misunderstand your 'window to the game comment.' I'm more in tune with the explanation you posted.
Cheating on dice rolls. I play a dice game with my five year old son using minis. Highest roll wins: simple. He hates to lose (when I played competitive Ultimate Frisbee, I was an ass. I no longer have that drive to win, but I think I passed it on via the genes). A couple times he has picked up the dice and told me a different number than he rolled. So that he would win. I explain why that's wrong.
He's FIVE. He still needs to learn right from wrong The same behavior (or other actions that are cheating) from people who should know better; playing a game? That is a sad, sad thing.
BTW, the coolest part of the dice game is I bought a pound of dice on amazon and we dump the bag out on the floor to start. It's raining dice, and then we have this big pile on the floor. We love it!
I write, so I like backstory. A couple folks in my current GMing campaign specifically tied their backstories into the Darkmoon Vale, where we are playing. It still fit the character they wanted to play, but they got some extra flavor in.
I've found a couple ways to reward them with some bit of knowledge or other little benefit that I tied to that backstory. That feels, to me, like a way to reward their effort via being "their window to the game."
To be honest, I would think there are two points you need to account for in Gygax' description of mastery. First, it is likely a description of what he did, and the comment that very few could do so is spot on. Gygax worked with it, he had time to do all that, at least some of the time. Second, Gygax is hardly a neutral party here. His comments about joining clubs and reading newspapers in the field are most likely to be seen as ads. All due respect to the man, but a few of the things he wrote were horribly focused on gaining revenue. The part about "only TSR adventures can provide enough quality" is pretty telling.
@Sissyl - I wouldn't say he was shilling for TSR, though. The break was anything but friendly, and he was out on his own when the book was published. I think he was making the point that the products he produced while helming TSR were of superior quality. As opposed to other 'lesser products' he didn't have a say in (i.e., Judges Guild). Of course, in my view, he's incredibly arrogant on the issue..
I'd imagine, once he left TSR, he wished ill upon them, not increased revenues.
I think the clubs, newspapers, etc. are ways he's distinguishing between just being a "player" and being dedicated to being the absolute best.
Rob Kuntz's interview, linked a couple posts above, is pretty interesting. Gygax was so rules-focused, but the original creation was awfully organic.
I understand that. Still, the man was still trying to make his way economically through the RPG trade, and it's no big stretch to think that he saw a big RPG sector as a good thing even if TSR was no longer on his good side.