It depends on the game and the genre. In games such as Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia! the world is supposed to be stacked against the party.
I'd say I'm in-between, really. I work with the party in terms of adding elements I know the players will enjoy. Though, I don't necessarily tailor the plot to suit their exact abilities, because if the players keep seeing that the same set of skills will apply in every situation, they'll soon get bored. In my opinion, if the players can actually create a "standard procedure" for most situations, I haven't made it challenging enough, and I know they'll get bored.
I don't believe in creating a situation that is impossible to solve, but I do believe in pushing the envelope, forcing them to think outside the box to work out what to do.
Then again, I run games based primarily on the overall storyline and interactions of the PCs and NPCs, so what I'll put the players up against will depend very much on their own actions, what my NPCs have available to them, and what makes sense for the circumstances.
Funny you should ask this, as very recently, this subject was discussed amoungst some friends. :-)
Personally, I am what could be considered, at times, a harsh GM/DM. For example, when I know something isn't going to work, but my players insist on going down that path, I will turn around and give them nothing for their efforts. It's like in real life, sometimes, you hit your head against a brick wall. This then hopefully make you think a little differently as a player next time, and perhaps make you come up with different solutions then simply depending on the powers your character have.
I like to think that in doing so, I add to the actual roleplay, by letting them play it out, instead of determining what the outcome is. Even if they don't get what they were after, they had the experience they can tuck under their belt.
However, recently it has been pointed out that I should perhaps tone my harshness down a little, as it is a style that can actually upset players. If that is the case, then I will most certainly do so, because the last thing any DM/GM should do, is upset their players.
Overall, I think it's a matter of give and take, but in my particular case, I think I should have pointed out that I am a relentless GM/DM, it's the way I was taught to do so, and whichever type of GM/DM you are, a warning should always be issued, because the play style of the GM/DM is not always the same as its players, and both parties need to know what they get themselves involved with.
[Disclaimer: This was a generic situation and does not relate to any situation that have happened in Co*]
[ QUOTE ]
It depends on the game and the genre. In games such as Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia! the world is supposed to be stacked against the party.
[/ QUOTE ]
Paranoia! definately.
CoC, yes, but there's still no point in creating a scenario that the PCs actually cannot solve. The whole point of CoC is to have them discover the Ultimate Horror (tm) and go insane. 
If you have a known group of PCs, I'd say you tailor the scenario to the group to the extent that they can crack it. It may not be possible to have everyone shine in every scenario, but the limelight needs to be shared out over time.
The main problem with a very open setting, like GG or any other 'large community' RP setting, is that you can't really do that. There's too much variety of types of character there. If you cater for everyone, no one really gets to 'shine' at all.
As an example, the recent hospital robbery plot currently has no real use for magically oriented characters. All the magical 'detective work' has been done and yielded nothing, it's down to the more normal detectives. Now, this is partially so that the plot team's characters can't really do anything apart from wait until there's something to hit, but it's also because we've had a load of magic plots and wanted something different.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
It depends on the game and the genre. In games such as Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia! the world is supposed to be stacked against the party.
[/ QUOTE ]
"Citizen, if the Computer is all perfect and all knowing, why does it need Trouble Shooters?"
The real problem with most games of this ilk is having that carrot still bobbing ahead of them, on the other side of the minefield. They always need a 'chance' to win; however minute.
One of my adventures in CoC had a group of friends go off to visit Alton Towers, only to cause an RTA with a deer outside a National Park. Before the Park-Keepers could get to them, they noticed the deer had carnivore teeth and front-facing eyes; and as the Park-Keepers shuffled off with the dead body, they decided to investigate.....
The Players are the Focus of the Game, but the GM/DM/Storyteller is the Focus of the World. You go messing around in things and there's gonna be trouble. 
But there's always a chance you'll come out...
You might even be the same shape as when you went in...
[ QUOTE ]
CoC, yes, but there's still no point in creating a scenario that the PCs actually cannot solve.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, you haven't played Masks of Nyarlathotep then?
[ QUOTE ]
The real problem with most games of this ilk is having that carrot still bobbing ahead of them, on the other side of the minefield. They always need a 'chance' to win; however minute.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, no. They need the perception that there's a chance to win. There is a difference. *evil smile*
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real problem with most games of this ilk is having that carrot still bobbing ahead of them, on the other side of the minefield. They always need a 'chance' to win; however minute.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, no. They need the perception that there's a chance to win. There is a difference. *evil smile*
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh they can always "win", it's just whether what they have to sacrifice is worth it. *insanely evil smile*
I concentrate on making sure the world works around the players and let them have pretty much free reign over their actions, be they good or bad.
I will not create scenarios that they "just happen" to have the skills to get through, though I will subtly point out to them those things that can aid them if they have not noticed them ooc, but I will not tell them how those things might help them.
I try to make the villains/lands as realistic as possible, in a land with teleporting mages and rogues you would expect banks to really have planned for those things when building their safe (planned that is to the extent they are capable of).
I also like to include the possibility of encountering other "player"like groups/characters or the results of their actions...
"So Bob the Archmage, you alarm wards start to go off..you look out the window of your groups tower and see 12 individuals clearly prepering to attack....as you look down out of the window you notice that there is a line of climbing spikes that ends at your window.....how many healthpoints you got again? hmm pardon yeah this is just like the time back when you and the guys were lvl 17 and attacked that party of eeeevil robber barons, yess I took notes..."
My personal answer would be, forget the characters and look at the players.
Your job as the GM is to make the world fun for the players. If you feel you have players who would take well to a challenge give them one. If the players would get more fun overpowering everything easily give them that. If they want puzzles then go that way.
Keep an eye on each player. Figure out what they need from the game and make sure you include an element of that. You cant give them all what they want all the time, but you can give each one of them what they need occasionally.
The same goes for how tactical/story driven your game is (with some players hating rules and others wanting to plan everything out with miniatures), how realistic it is (from very gritty through high spaceopera/hong kong action) and how harsh the penalties for failure (death comes swiftly and easily with no chance of comeback to players only die if they dosomething incredibly stupid, and resuractions are common-place).
Having said this, it important that there is a challenge. Just because you have a game full of munchkins, dont give them free reign. Make them feel their actions have effect on the world - let them kill major NPCs or influence political decisions. The plot can usually survive. Annother NPC can do whatever the plot requires or differnt nations can go to war, but equally well make them feel the world has an effect on them - make sure there are consequences for atleast some of their actions.
I tend to run story driven games. The rules are there as something to assist, not something to control, but having said this every couple of months I surprise my group with a highly tactical combat, or a bit of LARP in a tabletop game, or something equally unusual. That way I keep it fresh.
At Uni I had a very tactical group, and we used miniatures really heavily. It wasn't really my style, but they enjoyed it, and that enthusiasm rubs off, so I flt good about running it.
Every character should have a chance to shine, but more importantly every player should have a chance to shine. Let the thespian stand up to make a speach to the masses, let the tactician calculate how many rounds he has, how many bursts this equates to and the precise placement of his kevlar, and let the munchkin mow down enemy en mass every few sessions, and just occassionally be wicked, enjoy yourself, and feed them something really evil thety aren't expecting - you need to enjoy yourself too.
[ QUOTE ]
Your job as the GM is to make the world fun for the players.
[/ QUOTE ]
True, but your 'job' as GM is also to have fun yourself. If you have a load of players who like doing things which you don't like providing, then you need to get yourself different players. Otherwise, the GM will take a walk from boredom.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
This was sort of triggered by another thread, so I thought I'd post it here:
If anyone's DM'ed/ST'ed before - be it DnD, WoD, Amber, whatever - how did you approach the game? Did you develop a world and the dungeons/scenarios with the skills of the party in mind, or did you create a world in spite of what the PCs would have available to them?
Just intrigued to see what sort of styles people have.
When I used to DM - primarily DnD - I normally worked with the party. Saw what they had with them, and tried to work things in such a way they'd each get a chance to shine; this felt "best" to me as it didn't feel like I was roadblocking them simply because, say, a Rogue wasn't there.
Conversely, I've also seen some games that were challenging, without being fatal, that didn't really give a damn the party had nobody they could take a hit or two.