Fun Versus Roleplay, How do you makes games Interesting?

[Darth Ultron]

Earlier in the thread, you mentioned not just gathering people due to familiarity and friendship, but common interests. This implies you go out of your way to gather a group of people who you then judge based on your own personal preferences and treat some like jerks. That's commitment to making yourself miserable.

Well, no, but I do get how your personal bias sees that.

The best way to have a game is to, yes, game with people that have common interests.

But, that is not always possible. Sometimes you don't get to pick and choose. And sometimes...people lie and falsely represent themselves.

[gooddragon1]

Yes, absolutely. If all I wanted was to mindlessly kill stuff, level up, and gain new abilities, I would just play a video game. Roleplaying is what makes games meaningful to me.

A video game will never match the flexibility of pencil and paper. There's just too many things you can't program in. So, while I may not enjoy the roleplaying aspect fully, I certainly do enjoy the mechanical flexibility and ability to change up terrain and so many other elements on the fly.

This is why I dislike attempts to increase balance by sacrificing flexibility. In my mind it's losing the one advantage D&D has over video games.

[Tanarii]

Furthermore, giving out experience and loot becomes more difficult with different levels. It really seems like extra work to me, and that's something I strongly don't like. Begone, extra effort!

Um, why is it more difficult when they're in the same Tier of play? I've never found it any harder than giving them out to all the same level characters.

Milestones XP specifically be easier than encounter XP, or it can be harder. Depends on how you handle someone missing a milestone session, or sessions between milestones.

Plus it's not feasible unless there's only one party in the campaign. In fact, the entire premise of 'all the same level' is heavily based on the assumption of a single party of PCs.

And lastly...It's going to be one weird story if the team are at different power levels. Ah yes, the many adventures of Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman and...Aquaman. He handles the coffee and watches over the other henchmen and mounts.

So .... because the power levels are mechanically similar, it's a weird story because they're different power levels?

[Honest Tiefling]

Um, why is it more difficult when they're in the same Tier of play? I've never found it any harder than giving them out to all the same level characters.

Even within the same tier, someone can feel more or less useful than their buddies. Experience in many editions is also calculated differently. And if you give an awesome doodad to a party with one really good mage and an okay mage...Who do they want to give it to? Sure, it won't create issues for most groups, but it's more effort than I want to do for little to no reason. Who the hell feels good sitting down at a table where the DM has passed judgement on their character and determined them to be lesser? What does that accomplish?

When it happened to me, I didn't feel encouraged or challenged to RP, I felt that my RP wasn't good enough or what the DM wanted. And if the DM was expressing a clear disinterest in what I was doing, I wasn't doing anyone any favors by hanging around. Maybe it was a break down in communication, but I still must ask, what is it supposed to do?

Milestones XP specifically be easier than encounter XP, or it can be harder. Depends on how you handle someone missing a milestone session, or sessions between milestones.

If the group levels up, doesn't matter if they show or not, character matches others. They were just there or handling some issue off-screen. It's not milestone experience as written for most systems, but I am a very lazy person.

Plus it's not feasible unless there's only one party in the campaign. In fact, the entire premise of 'all the same level' is heavily based on the assumption of a single party of PCs.

...I assume that there's only one party of PCs? Not entirely sure what the problem is here, unless you mean campaigns with multiple parties of player characters, which is going to be handled differently because of many different issues.

So .... because the power levels are mechanically similar, it's a weird story because they're different power levels?

Some stories can interweave characters of varying power level and usefulness. Others make you wonder why the main characters keep dragging under=powered characters to their inevitable and messy demise. Why IS that guy here? Why not replace them with someone more competent? The world is ending, we don't have time for your feelings.

[Tanarii]

Even within the same tier, someone can feel more or less useful than their buddies.

I think we got mixed up. Are you aware that Tiers of Play in 5e describes level ranges? Tier 1 = 1-4, Tier 2 = 5-10. I was talking about 5e in the post you by all appearances responded to. Although you didn't quote so I wasn't 100% sure, but the content of your post sure implied you were responding to my comments.

And characters of the same level can feel more or less useful to each other, as well as different. Characters of higher level can feel less useful than lower level cases. And vice versa.

...I assume that there's only one party of PCs? Not entirely sure what the problem is here, unless you mean campaigns with multiple parties of player characters, which is going to be handled differently because of many different issues.

Yes that's what I meant. And that's what I run, an open table game with many players and groups of PCs. And by the middle of 5e's Tier 2, characters can easily adventure with characters several levels higher or lower than them. They are not out of the power range of each other. Works in AL (5e official play) as well. Since I know it works to have disparate levels in a group, clearly it would also work even if there was just one party as well.

But the reason I brought it up is because I find a lot of people do assume a single party doing all their adventuring together in lockstep. Which is certainly a reasonable assumption for home games, but a large chunk of people don't play that way.

-----

In regards to you finding it easier in general, your version of milestone easier for you specifically, and being lazy, I can only say ... kudos to you sir! Sounds like a good reason to do it your way. That's exactly what I was curious about.

[2D8HP]

Spoiler: @Chaosticket in this thread

Show

Watched Gamers 2 Dorkness Rising today. Not the first time Ive read, watched, or seen a great adventure.
Youve encountered this problem before where there are people with different ideas and goals.

Ive tried both roleplaying and going off the rails to avoid the typical idea of a Dungeons and Dragons game as Ive done that often already. Either be a murderhobo & kill everything, be a roleplayer and try to talk my way out of fights, and Im hoping to eventually get high tier spells and direct stories.

Let me known if youve done this before. You, the pretty heroes have a quest from people to kill the always evil ugly species.

I like to see deconstructions, parodies, and fourth wall breaks of that. Movies, webcomics, and other players stories' like befriending the "always evil" species. Or point out adventurers being hired killers doesnt exactly make them "good".

How often do you hear Monty Python references?

Are you able to roleplay and have fun? Do you roleplay everything to be linear and serious?

Is roleplaying an anchor or an asset?

Okay this was poorly written as I had to work so I couldnt edit the opening post.

I like role-playing so long as one this is understood: dont ignore the effort. Im not demanding 1million experience for acting like Gandalf, but something. Also I hate railroading ignoring personal decisions especially when I do it in character.

Those the easiest way to break me in roleplaying and ruin a promising game.

Dude, my reading comprehension must be abysmal tonight, because the only thing I understood from your posts in this thread was the question:

"How often do you hear Monty Python references?"

The answer to which is:

Not nearly enough!


But that's not all of the 1970's and 80's pop-culture references I'd like to hear.

I think in a really good game session someone should shout or mutter:

"KHAAAAAAAN!!!"

"By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Worvan, you shall be avenged!"

"NI!"

"Wherever you go, there you are."

"SPAM!"

"This one goes to eleven"

"A SHRUBBERY!"

"What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?"


Then I'll feel comfortable.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think we got mixed up. Are you aware that Tiers of Play in 5e describes level ranges? Tier 1 = 1-4, Tier 2 = 5-10. I was talking about 5e in the post you by all appearances responded to. Although you didn't quote so I wasn't 100% sure, but the content of your post sure implied you were responding to my comments.

Yes, I was. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant that a level 4 in a group of level 1's might seem out of place. I think that it is possible to engage all players in a roughly equal manner with a level disparity, but again...Lazy. Trying to make everyone useful is tricky enough, I don't need more ways to complicate it.

I assumed that was what you were talking about, because I've seen you post in the 5e forum, after all.

Yes that's what I meant. And that's what I run, an open table game with many players and groups of PCs. And by the middle of 5e's Tier 2, characters can easily adventure with characters several levels higher or lower than them. They are not out of the power range of each other. Works in AL (5e official play) as well. Since I know it works to have disparate levels in a group, clearly it would also work even if there was just one party as well.

Never done AL play, admittedly. I might have assumed it wasn't a practical application of the question, really. I could be wrong, however, but I really think if you are struggling with finding fun in role playing, organized play might not be the best first step for you.

But the reason I brought it up is because I find a lot of people do assume a single party doing all their adventuring together in lockstep. Which is certainly a reasonable assumption for home games, but a large chunk of people don't play that way.

I pretty much assume that this point experience is what is used for AL and similar games, since not all DMs can gauge people they don't know well and they're trying to learn the characters and have a limited time frame in which to do so.

[Chaosticket]

At this point I have a hard time believing serious roleplayers really are friendly, but thats really because negative interactions with Forum/roleplayers.

I fantasize that everyone can enjoy ever scenario with creativity.

Personally I like decisions related to improving... anything I become interested as I am an engineer. Pretty obvious I wouldnt have fun in a game without things to calculate like currency, levels, and statistics.

[RazorChain]

At this point I have a hard time believing serious roleplayers really are friendly, but thats really because negative interactions with Forum/roleplayers.

I fantasize that everyone can enjoy ever scenario with creativity.

Personally I like decisions related to improving... anything I become interested as I am an engineer. Pretty obvious I wouldnt have fun in a game without things to calculate like currency, levels, and statistics.

Sorry to burst your bubble but serious roleplayers are just people like everybody else, some of them are jerks and some of them aren't. Me? I'm a total effing jerk and demand that my players roleplay like their characters life depends on it as it often does.

If the mechanical aspects are the thing that interest you then I suggest you find a group that is interested in the game part of the roleplaying games, it would probably mean less roleplaying and more gaming.

[dps]

At this point I have a hard time believing serious roleplayers really are friendly, but thats really because negative interactions with Forum/roleplayers.

In my experience, oleplayers, as a group, are not noticeably more or less friendly than any other given group of people, nor are serious people less friendly than frivolous people, though serious people may be less outgoing.

I fantasize that everyone can enjoy ever scenario with creativity.

That's just silly; it's like saying that everyone should have the same favorite food.

[Quertus]

So you do it ''everyone gets a participation trophy'' style?

Well, not a way I agree with, for sure. If one player act good, and the rest are jerks...you give everyone the reward so that next time that one player is good again, and everyone else is a jerk...again.

I give out individual XP as a reward for role playing. I don't care about the level differences: the good role players will be a couple levels higher and the bad roll players will be a couple levels lower. That is what I want.

The die hard, bad roll players won't change. But there are more then enough average players in the middle that will get the idea that role playing is a good idea and that they should do it.

The "individual reward" is the screen time of getting your actions mentioned in wrap-up. The XP is the group award to encourage others to notice your good behavior. Win/win.

Also, I'm lazy, and don't want to calculate XP multiple times. Or store multiple numbers for when players invariably lost their character sheets.

A video game will never match the flexibility of pencil and paper. There's just too many things you can't program in. So, while I may not enjoy the roleplaying aspect fully, I certainly do enjoy the mechanical flexibility and ability to change up terrain and so many other elements on the fly.

This is why I dislike attempts to increase balance by sacrificing flexibility. In my mind it's losing the one advantage D&D has over video games.

Wow. I'd never considered that.

So... Does a role-playing game offer you anything that a war game doesn't?

Milestones XP specifically be easier than encounter XP, or it can be harder. Depends on how you handle someone missing a milestone session, or sessions between milestones.

Well, there's another thing I'd never considered.

Clearly, I'll need to think more about milestones.

Plus it's not feasible unless there's only one party in the campaign. In fact, the entire premise of 'all the same level' is heavily based on the assumption of a single party of PCs.

Huh. I care about being lazy, and just handing out one XP total at the end of the night.

I could still do that in 3e, but not in 3.5, under this scenario.

And, if I had a spreadsheet of which character was in which sessions, I suppose I could rebuild their XP for them. Sounds like effort, though.

And if you give an awesome doodad to a party with one really good mage and an okay mage...Who do they want to give it to? Sure, it won't create issues for most groups, but it's more effort than I want to do for little to no reason.

I remember a 2e group with the rule "everyone starts at first level". We had 2 new players come in with first level wizards. The characters couldn't really contribute, and the players weren't having fun. My character, Armus, turns to the Ranger/Mage PC, reaches out his hand, and says, "give me your Staff of Power". He complies. Then he holds out his other hand to the party Mage, and "asks" for her Staff of the Magi. She reluctantly complies. Then Armus handed these relics to the two apprentice wizards.

The sorceress objected, but Armus countered by reminding her that her father (from whom she stole her Staff of the Magi) survived his early adventures because his master had the wisdom to do exactly what Armus was doing now.

The fact that distributing these items was an issue is what made it a memorable story.

Who the hell feels good sitting down at a table where the DM has passed judgement on their character and determined them to be lesser? What does that accomplish?

When it happened to me, I didn't feel encouraged or challenged to RP, I felt that my RP wasn't good enough or what the DM wanted. And if the DM was expressing a clear disinterest in what I was doing, I wasn't doing anyone any favors by hanging around. Maybe it was a break down in communication, but I still must ask, what is it supposed to do?

Same.

So, what do you think of my system (The "individual reward" is the screen time of getting your actions mentioned in wrap-up. The XP is the group award to encourage others to notice your good behavior.) Do you think that it would have the desired effect for you?

If the group levels up, doesn't matter if they show or not, character matches others. They were just there or handling some issue off-screen. It's not milestone experience as written for most systems, but I am a very lazy person.

Sounds good to me.

The world is ending, we don't have time for your feelings.

Now that's quote worthy.

"This one goes to eleven"


"What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?"
.

Well, I don't actually get that last one, but Amalak's tagline is that "This one goes to eleven", so, am I close enough?

At this point I have a hard time believing serious roleplayers really are friendly, but thats really because negative interactions with Forum/roleplayers.

Sorry to burst your bubble but serious roleplayers are just people like everybody else, some of them are jerks and some of them aren't. Me? I'm a total effing jerk and demand that my players roleplay like their characters life depends on it as it often does.

In my experience, oleplayers, as a group, are not noticeably more or less friendly than any other given group of people, nor are serious people less friendly than frivolous people, though serious people may be less outgoing.

Personally, I aim for the impossible goal of 100% accuracy in role-playing, am quite the ****, but don't much care if others roleplay or not.

This limited sample isn't looking good. Still, I've encountered plenty of friendly (and even more outgoing) roleplayers. So, Chaosticket, I can only digest that you expand your sample size.

I fantasize that everyone can enjoy ever scenario with creativity.

That's just silly; it's like saying that everyone should have the same favorite food.

Well, not the same favorite, perhaps, just that everyone enjoy pizza, and everyone enjoy burritos, and everyone enjoy eggplant parmesan, and everyone enjoy peanut butter & jelly sandwiches, and everybody enjoy curry, and everybody enjoy manwich.

This is, sadly, not the way humans are built.

Personally I like decisions related to improving... anything I become interested as I am an engineer. Pretty obvious I wouldnt have fun in a game without things to calculate like currency, levels, and statistics.

If the mechanical aspects are the thing that interest you then I suggest you find a group that is interested in the game part of the roleplaying games, it would probably mean less roleplaying and more gaming.

Chaosticket, back at you, can you not enjoy these other things?

But, really, the group need not be 5+ identical clones to have fun (unless they have a very restrictive idea of what is "fun"). But everyone's range of what they consider "fun" has to have enough overlap that they can share fun moments, like sharing spotlight time.

[Florian]

At this point I have a hard time believing serious roleplayers really are friendly, but thats really because negative interactions with Forum/roleplayers.

I fantasize that everyone can enjoy ever scenario with creativity.

It´s just that some "sources of fun" don't mesh well or even ruin others and there is no "I play D&D" but rather "I play an RPG using the D&D rules". I like pizza. I dislike peanut butter and jelly. Putting that on my pizza ruins it for me, and there's no help saying "but it´s still a pizza!".

[Jay R]

My solution is to play with friends whom I trust and who are more-or-less compatible, plus a willingness to let them enjoy their approach while I'm enjoying mine, and a recognition that a game doesn't have to be perfect to be fun.

Just like having fun in any other group activity.

"I learned then, from my wheelchair, that life doesn't have to be perfect to be wonderful."

-- Annette Funicello

[Honest Tiefling]

You give the whole party XP for one player role-playing. Just like you reward the whole party for any behavior you want to see more of.

And, at the end of the session, you ask the players, as a group, to nominate events that are XP worthy. Then Everyone is looking for and remembering and liking everyone's contributions to the game. Books, books, books. (inside joke for something that still gets referenced at one of my tables).

I assume this is the method of which you speak. I could see issues arising if not everyone at the table knows each other or there is a time crunch due to jobs, but I can definitely see reasons to do it. It puts the focus of the roleplay onto amusing the table, not onto pleasing the DM and whatever expectations they have. It gives the DM time to go over notes to wrap up the campaign before people wander off with their character sheets as well. Only issue I could see are if people are shy and having issues doing the roleplay, this might be some pressure shoved onto them.

I wouldn't use wrapping things up as an individual reward, because some actions (such as accidentally starting a fire) are going to demand more time to explain because the city was on fire. Other characters are also going to be sneaky and unnoticed. However, using this to put emphasis on group efforts is an appealing idea to me...

I fantasize that everyone can enjoy ever scenario with creativity.

I don't think I quite get what you mean, can you elaborate?

[Max_Killjoy]

My solution is to play with friends whom I trust and who are more-or-less compatible, plus a willingness to let them enjoy their approach while I'm enjoying mine, and a recognition that a game doesn't have to be perfect to be fun.

As mentioned elsewhere, the old gaming group here had:

• the player who wanted to "do badass stuff" with this character, be cool and impressive and awesome
• the player who wanted drama and intrigue, who wanted high risks and hard choices, to plan big and win (or lose) big
• the player who wanted to scheme and plot and have all the pieces moving before his opponent even knew they were in a contest
• the player who wanted to solve problems -- unravel mysteries, uncover plots, recover artifacts, expose traitors, protect friends, etc
• the player who wanted to hang out, eat snacks, and roll dice to kill stuff

And yet somehow, we all had fun and got what we wanted out of the game without having the parts we didn't want constantly hanging over us.

[Chaosticket]

I think successful games require two factors. Have a vibrant world and have interesting minigames.

If the game is too plain then you can fall back on the minigames. If the minigames are denied then what?

Roleplaying and character building are two different things people can enjoy, hopefully both.

When you make factions and say someone who plays differently "isnt a TRUE (blank)" that things go nasty.

Personally I enjoy the levity you can bring by introduce random elements like parodies.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, we all know that if you don't roleplay a tiefling, you might as well set your character sheet on fire for selecting an inferior race. But that's fine, everyone makes mistakes such as trying to play an Aasimar.

Through...Curiosity begs me to ask this question: Did you make a parody character that had a lackluster reception at a table more than a few times?

[2D8HP]

I think successful games require two factors. Have a vibrant world and have interesting minigames.

If the game is too plain then you can fall back on the minigames. If the minigames are denied then what?

Roleplaying and character building are two different things people can enjoy, hopefully both.

.
I can remember enjoying the "character building mini-game" more (I also "made" custom cars for Car Wars which seemed similar), but now I often just find it toil which I do just to get to the part when the GM says "What do you do?". I think it's fine as an option, but I now think it best if there's short cuts.

When you make factions and say someone who plays differently "isnt a TRUE (blank)" that things go nasty.

.


But that would just leave us things like mortality, politics, and religion to argue about!



That doesn't seem wise, I think it best if we "badwrongfun!" over our games instead.

Personally I enjoy the levity you can bring by introduce random elements like parodies.

Um... if you had the old The Rogues Gallery supplement, you'd quickly learn that the original players of what became Dungeons & Dragons were some jokers, and they were doing a parody of the fantasy fiction of the time.

Characters like:

Murlynd

Erak's cousin

and

Sir Fang


According to

Mike Monard

AKA "Old Geezer"

who was a player in the first three big "campaigns" (Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and Tékumel

"We made up some **** that we thought would be fun."

[Quertus]

I think successful games require two factors. Have a vibrant world and have interesting minigames.

If the game is too plain then you can fall back on the minigames. If the minigames are denied then what?

Roleplaying and character building are two different things people can enjoy, hopefully both.

When you make factions and say someone who plays differently "isnt a TRUE (blank)" that things go nasty.

Personally I enjoy the levity you can bring by introduce random elements like parodies.

World that be one of two factors, with an or instead of an and?

Personally, I enjoy role-playing. Not so much character building. Splat diving is a chore. Developing a personality and history and the character of the character is time consuming. I've only actually enjoyed character creation once, out of the hundreds of characters I've played.

But I do enjoy the "how do we make a functional party out of this random collection of characters?" minigame.

Parodies and humor... Depends on the group. I can certainly see some players I've gamed with getting "that's not serious role-playing" from some groups I've gamed with. If that's what's going on, then you need to if you can identify how that component is incompatible with their style, and then either see if you can find something that you'll enjoy that falls within their style, or find a different group where your fun matches their fun.

Don't try spreading peanut butter on a pizza.

[Frozen_Feet]

A video game will never match the flexibility of pencil and paper. There's just too many things you can't program in.

This view is obsolete and tells me you've never played the truly impressive computer games out there. Dwarf Fortress and Unreal World are easily more expansive than your average GM-controlled game. Given enough computational resources, a CRPG will be no worse as a game than the best tabletop game the creator could hold.

Of course, most of the games I'd consider "truly impressive" are labours of love that have been in development for one or more decades. Or they only became computationally feasible past 2000s. So programming them isn't exactly easy.

---

Back to thread topic:

If you are playing a roleplaying game and the roleplaying part is getting in your way, you are doing something wrong. Roleplaying should be the fun you're trying to have. You may be:

1) Playing as the wrong charater.

1a) you chose a role with a personality radically different from yourself, and cannot get in their head, understand their motives etc.

Solution: switch to a character with a personality closer to yourself.

1b) you crafted your character with mechanics which are too complex for you to efficiently use.

Solution: switch to character with less mechanical fiddly bits.

1c) how you expected to play your character clashes with tone of the game. F.ex. you made a serious character for a comedy game.

Solution: swap to a character better in line with tone of the game.

2) Playing in the wrong game.

2a) you chose your character's personality for a different genre than the game turns out to be.

Solution: take the character to a different game.

2b) the medium of the game suit you badly. For example, speaking as your character proves difficult in a tableyop environmeny.

Solution: swap from a tabletop game to play-by-post, or vice versa (etc.)

2c) the rules of the game don't support playing as the sort of character you wish to play.

Solution: change the rules.

3) Playing in the wrong hobby.

3a) you don't actually care about roleplaying, you just want to win the tactical minigame.

Solution: go play Warhammer or one of its offshoots.

3b) you wanted to tell a grand story but the dice and other players are too unpredictable.

Solution: go write collaborative fanfiction, collaborative part optional.

3c) you like the roleplaying part, but just sitting around talking about stuff is lackluster. You want to look like your character and do stuff!

Solution: start LARPing.

3d) you're really just here to hang out with friends and eat snacks, and the game part is just an excuse.

Solution: say it out loud and suggest you go to do something that actually interests you.

4) Playing with the wrong people.

4a) the other players have weirdly specific and unrealistic expectations of your roleplaying skills. F.ex. they expect you to be able to do voices and give you a bad time if you don't.

Solution: tell them to be more tolerant of your mishaps. If this does not help, leave.

4b) the other players have weirdly specific and unrealistic expectations of what the game is about. F.ex. every railroading GM ever.

Solution: tell these people to broaden their horizons. If this does not help, leave.

4c) despite nominally being participants in the same game, no-one else is interested in roleplaying.

Solution: find a new game group.

[Max_Killjoy]

This view is obsolete and tells me you've never played the truly impressive computer games out there. Dwarf Fortress and Unreal World are easily more expansive than your average GM-controlled game. Given enough computational resources, a CRPG will be no worse as a game than the best tabletop game the creator could hold.

Of course, most of the games I'd consider "truly impressive" are labours of love that have been in development for one or more decades. Or they only became computationally feasible past 2000s. So programming them isn't exactly easy.

Really? From what I've seen both of those games are still just video games.

[Knaight]

This view is obsolete and tells me you've never played the truly impressive computer games out there. Dwarf Fortress and Unreal World are easily more expansive than your average GM-controlled game. Given enough computational resources, a CRPG will be no worse as a game than the best tabletop game the creator could hold.

Expansive and flexible are two different things. Dwarf Fortress is an incredibly detailed system with a giant pile of content. There's still all sorts of interaction that it's not capable of compared to even a thoroughly mediocre RPG run by a thoroughly mediocre GM.

The really obvious example here is dialog. Having an in character conversation is easy. Even the cutting edge of video game dialog options has nothing on the flexibility achievable by two people reasonably proficient in the same language.

[Frozen_Feet]

Yes, people are still better at natural language than machines. Machines are also getting better, to the point where we have chatterbot AIs capable of passing the Turing test, which are usable for video games. So the "never" part in goodragon1's comment does not hold either way.

As for everything else, Dwarf Fortress is flexible enough that I can do things in it which would make your average GM throw their hands up and say "this goes beyond what I prepared, let's get back on track, shall we?" Many common problems in tabletop games (such as railroading) are due because the human GMs are not as flexible as the ideal would have it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, people are still better at natural language than machines. Machines are also getting better, to the point where we have chatterbot AIs capable of passing the Turing test, which are usable for video games. So the "never" part in goodragon1's comment does not hold either way.

As for everything else, Dwarf Fortress is flexible enough that I can do things in it which would make your average GM throw their hands up and say "this goes beyond what I prepared, let's get back on track, shall we?" Many common problems in tabletop games (such as railroading) are due because the human GMs are not as flexible as the ideal would have it.

Huh. As someone who has invented, populated, rough-mapped, and given general histories to whole towns on the fly, for example because the PCs decided they wanted to track down one of their favorite NPCs when he wasn't around, I guess I'm a pretty good GM.

The superficial qualities of the Turing Test aside, I haven't come across software (games) capable of more than "going through the motions" when it comes to NPCs --that is, there's no motivation or depth, it's just algorithms spitting out canned responses.

[Quertus]

Huh. As somehow who has invented, populated, rough-mapped, and given general histories to whole towns on the fly, for example because the PCs decided they wanted to track down one of their favorite NPCs when he wasn't around, I guess I'm a pretty good GM.

That is, indeed, a skill many GMs do not possess. My players have repeatedly commented on how I'm good at improvising (despite the fact that I hate having to improvise, and prefer to end a session on, "so, what are we doing next time?"). Which merely serves to reinforce the fact that their experience matches mine, that most GMs lack that skill.

Now, that skill by itself doesn't make you a good GM. But the lack of that skill, combined with an inability to cope with the lack of that skill, can certainly make you a bad GM.