I, of course, feel that a human DM brings creativity to the table. He or she makes judgment calls, adapts the adventure on the fly or between sessions to make it more fun for the players, and breathes life into the NPCs. Because I'm like that, I've never understood the players who think their job is to beat the DM. Dude, I'm the DM. Rocks fall from the sky and crush you all.

BWAH! Our group has that "DM as God" that we shorthand as "Cow from space". As in, "Fine, to show my ultimate control over reality at this here gaming table, a COW plunges flaming through the atmosphere and strikes you dead."

In my experience most RPGs are, essentially, a combat system with other stuff built around it. I think the only one that might defy that argument (that I've played) is the Serenity RPG, which seems to give equal treatment to all uses of skills with its "Appropriate Attribute (as determined by GM) dice + Skill dice".

Shadowrun, CP: 2020, GURPS, Champions... all seemed to be primarily about the combat. Which kind of formulated my philosophy as a player and GM; that role-playing is something I have to provide. The gaming system is there for suggestions as to which dice I roll when I'm done role-playing.

I don't mind haggling for dinner prices or, as a GM, letting the players haggle for them. Like Raq's experience with Cthulhu and Denny's, I once ran a Shadowrun game wherein I, as GM, set the goal and the players spent the entire session planning. Easiest session I ever had. I didn't mind at all. And when all was said and done they came up with a fairly nifty plan.

I assume Champions hasn't fundamentally changed since I played regularly mumblety years ago. I found it easy to use the system to create any sort of character you wanted -- I once turned a strongly pacifist friend into an NPC whose big power was the ability to heal.

The books assumed that the players would be doing a lot of combat. But as a player who was more a frustrated actor than anything else (my Champions circle described my trademark character as "an ordinary guy with powers"), I never had any trouble creating characters with non-combat lives reflected on the character sheets.

On the other hand, my first gaming circle included someone who turned Runequest into a universal RPH system. His Indiana Jones campaign flopped, mostly because there were too many players.

. . . then there was the D&D campaign where the DM thought he was the next Weis and/or Hickman, and we were working out his plot points and themes. He had us spend an entire session working out fully fleshed characters with backgrounds and all, then threw us through a dimensional warp where those backgrounds and relationships didn't matter and we didn't know anyone in the party. Plus he finally admitted that the monsters were designed to kill as many characters as possible and that "it will all make sense in a few weeks, when we get to the next stage." I went through 12 characters in 6 weeks and eventually stopped creating new ones, just cycling through three variants.

I stopped showing up, and so did everyone else not log after.

. . . then there was the D&D campaign where the DM thought he was the next Weis and/or Hickman, and we were working out his plot points and themes.

I had a GM like that running a home-brewed system. Eventually we players were just adding witty banter and rolling dice on occasions. We got bored of his NPCs running things that we wouldn't even pay attention and be all confused when he would introduce the next encounter.

"And then the Kraken rears its head from the water..."

"Wait, what? In a desert?"

"You're on a boat. You've been on a boat for nearly a week."

"We have? Was I drunk?"

I think I'd have a hard time placing myself on a narrativist/gamist scale -- in general, I tend narrativist, preferring immersion in my character as a player, or for my players as a DM.

But the stories I like to immerse myself or my players in do tend to involve a lot of fighting.

I go back and forth on tactical minis combat, too. In general I dislike them. Or, that is....

....I like my combats to *be* tactical, but I like an immersive tactical. I want my (or my player's) tactics to be based on the combat situation, not the position of the minis. And sometimes, those two things are not the same. I think D&D tactical minis, combined with the rules for their use, produce unlikely, and even ridiculous tactics (and yes, I know the existence of magic changes things).

Hmm... I think I'm kind of rambling and unfocused this morning. I'll have to collect my thoughts and try again later.

I have a hard time with combat when I DM, because I suck at combat tactics. "Umm . . . I charge?" Especially when I'm trying to run a monster/etc. that's supposed to be incredibly tough.

The problem is exacerbated because Hubby and/or his buddies are normally in the party, and they've all got military background, so they do things like "Oh, like hell we're marching up to the front gate! We're going around and climbing over the back wall after dark!"

Still, I got to catch one of them being stupid, because he wanted to change into the super-cool armor of badassness he'd found in the middle of a battle, and he thought hiding in a side room was sufficient. I did enjoy asking, "So what is your butt naked armor class, standing there in just your skivies?"

Hrm, I don't GM, but I have written adventures and I tend to fall into the Feng Shui (the RPG) design philosophy, where incidental combats I tend not to worry about, but story combats, combats that move the story/adventure along I tend to sweat over and try to have interesting environments/props for the players.

For a Shadowrun adventure I did a while back, the climatic scene was a fight in the Awakened Animal zoo with high level animal spirit. I ended up listing a dozen animals and the various tactics that they could use to mess with the players.

And for the Serenity adventure I just finished, I think that I have a pretty fun environment for the climatic combat, but I don't think I can talk about it. For people who play the game, all I can say is start beefing up your Zero-G skill...

then there was the D&D campaign where the DM thought he was the next Weis and/or Hickman

This is what you get for living in Utah.

Speaking of Hickman, I think my model is the original Ravenloft. Basically you got a (really cool) map and stat blocks for monsters. It lived or died based on what the DM and players brought to the table. If the DM really role-played Strahd, you could have some really interesting (occasionally nightmarish) fights.

In boardgame news, I just heard the best review of a game I've heard all week: We played El Grande at lunch (it comes with a black dildo as a playing piece, leading to a house rule involving positioning that piece and saying "They call me El Grande!" But that's not the point).

EG is a victory points game, so at each scoring round you tally up the points for each region. "Seville gives four to red and two to yellow. Valencia gives 9 to blue and three to yellow." etc.

One player said, "This game is Eurovision."

This is what you get for living in Utah.

True, true . . .

re: Ravenloft, we were running Ravenloft II though no one knew it but me, the DM, and the entire table gave a lovely shriek when their courteous host said, "Oh, I am sorry, let me introduce myself, I am Strahd." (this being the same group that took him out in Ravenloft I with a natural 20 on the Hold Person and a natural 1 on the save, grr . . .)

Good times.

A "Eurovision Hero" video game would be fucking awesome.