Quote from: Hastur T. FannonWhich is exactly the same as every RPG since EGG wrote that supplement for Chainmail.  Has there ever been a GM advice chapter that doesn't have "don't bother rolling for trivial things that don't advance the game."?

Magnificant! We're coming together!

So more or less it's coming down to:

Keep the game moving,
Don't roll dice for stupid stuff,
The advice had been around for awhile but people found it useful to have spelled out,
If your game isn't fun, then try going at it from another angle, first, ask yourself and/or your group what isn't working. (added with thanks to Zachary The First)
If a theory helps your game to be fun then cool, just don't tell me it's the only way to game or is a brand new way of thinking that's going to save us all,

That more or less cover it?  I'd like to mention (as I don't post to this thread much) that I've been learning and enjoying reading through it so far, so thanks to everyone whos been posting.

Quote from: cnath.rmSo more or less it's coming down to:

Keep the game moving,
Don't roll dice for stupid stuff,
The advice had been around for awhile but people found it useful to have spelled out,
If your game isn't fun, then try going at it from another angle,
If a theory helps your game to be fun then cool, just don't tell me it's the only way to game or is a brand new way of thinking that's going to save us all,

That more or less cover it?  I'd like to mention (as I don't post to this thread much) that I've been learning and enjoying reading through it so far, so thanks to everyone whos been posting.

It pretty much covers my feelings on the matter, although with this:

QuoteIf your game isn't fun, then try going at it from another angle

I would only add the basic advice of "first, ask yourself and/or your group what isn't working?"  Don't reinvent the wheel if you don't have to, of course.

Good synopsis thus far, though!

Quote from: Zachary The FirstIt pretty much covers my feelings on the matter, although with this:

 
I would only add the basic advice of "first, ask yourself and/or your group what isn't working?"  Don't reinvent the wheel if you don't have to, of course.

Good synopsis thus far, though!

Thanks, I figured I'd try to go with and foster the consensous that seemed to be forming. I totally agree with your addition (and will add it above so others can see (with credit of course))

On a sidenote, did the APO system ever kick those packages out to you?  I just sent a package to an APO so I'm wondering what it's chances are.

Quote from: cnath.rmThanks, I figured I'd try to go with and foster the consensous that seemed to be forming. I totally agree with your addition (and will add it above so others can see (with credit of course))

On a sidenote, did the APO system ever kick those packages out to you?  I just sent a package to an APO so I'm wondering what it's chances are.

I got the one, but never the first one.  Bummer, huh?  Still, we've been having insane problems at the APO here.  It's funny, because it seems like the Middle East APOs are usually ok, Germany and England are solid, but for some reason, Spain and Italy seem to have severe problems--perhaps because we're a little bit off the DoD beaten-path.  So as long as you aren't sending it to one of those two places, I think you'll be ok.

Now, back to the thread.

So "say yes or roll the dice" has been dealt with.  The problem is that people who were angry about it seemed to have never read it in context and made assumptions about it based on the phrase.  But I want to go a step further.

Irrespective of SYORTD, indie RPGs do not support the idea that any one player can do anything she likes, trampling over the fun of everyone else, including the stupid GM asshole, and that she may introduce stupid ideas that violate theme.

In fact, this kind of violation of story is pretty constrained in many indie RPGs.  Most of these games--and the best of them, in my opinion--have another set of rules having to do with consensus (aka the "bullshit" rule):  Any player (including the GM) can say, "That's crap, it's silly," and voila, it doesn't happen.  So someone who brings a wuxia master with magical eye-beams to a game of Dogs in the Vineyard will be told to stuff it by everyone at the table.

Quote from: droogThe thing is, I don't think anybody was harassing anybody else with that phrase. The Poobah, maybe. Where were people saying "YOU WILL USE THIS RULE!"?

There were a few folks pretty strongly suggesting wandering it into other games over on RPGnet in a thread about "great GM advice".

So, uh, it has happened at least once.

Not that this invalidates your point, here, but it has happened.

Quote from: cnath.rmThanks, I figured I'd try to go with and foster the consensous that seemed to be forming. I totally agree with your addition (and will add it above so others can see (with credit of course))

On a sidenote, did the APO system ever kick those packages out to you?  I just sent a package to an APO so I'm wondering what it's chances are.

The part where there still isn't consensus, and I suspect cannot be, is the question of "where the buck stops". Whether the GM is the absolute authority of his game, with the right to say no to the players for whatever fucking reason he pleases, or whether the players have the right to demand that the GM do things a certain way.

Given that all the theorists seem unbelievably desperate to avoid direct responses to this issue, I doubt that consensus can be reached.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RobNJSo "say yes or roll the dice" has been dealt with.  The problem is that people who were angry about it seemed to have never read it in context and made assumptions about it based on the phrase.  But I want to go a step further.

No, the problem is with the underlying assumptions that fuel the statement.

QuoteIrrespective of SYORTD, indie RPGs do not support the idea that any one player can do anything she likes, trampling over the fun of everyone else, including the stupid GM asshole, and that she may introduce stupid ideas that violate theme.

And in their concern about "DM tyranny" they try to create a dictatorship of the playertariat (as someone called it here), that is far MORE likely to lead to dysfunctional groups led by a manipulative glory hound than if you just let the GM actually keep his testicles.

QuoteIn fact, this kind of violation of story is pretty constrained in many indie RPGs.  Most of these games--and the best of them, in my opinion--have another set of rules having to do with consensus (aka the "bullshit" rule):  Any player (including the GM) can say, "That's crap, it's silly," and voila, it doesn't happen.  So someone who brings a wuxia master with magical eye-beams to a game of Dogs in the Vineyard will be told to stuff it by everyone at the table.

This too is a "rule" that can be horrifically abused by manipulative players. Why not let the GM be arbitrer of what is or is not bullshit, and then you actually solve most of the problems, by focusing on creating better more responsible GMs instead of trying to make the GMs powerless and irrelevant?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThere were a few folks pretty strongly suggesting wandering it into other games over on RPGnet in a thread about "great GM advice".

So, uh, it has happened at least once.

Not that this invalidates your point, here, but it has happened.

It is one of many, many things on RPG.net (and elsewhere) that the Swine try to push as if "everyone" agrees with these things. GNS in general is like that, they just come in and start talking on unrelated threads about Narrativism as if EVERYBODY clearly accepts that narrativism exists as a real concept and works the way Ron Edwards says it does.

The "Monarda law" is the same thing, the Swine try to act as if EVERYBODY is clearly in agreement with something that they consider so fucking brilliant and obvious, when in fact its anything but either.

Trying to dominate the terminology is a cheap way of trying to subvert the realm of ideas. If you're in control of how people are talking, you are in control of what they're allowed or not allowed to talk about.

Its also a way to "force" people to accept it without saying "You must agree to this!".
Its like if I came up to Bill and started talking about how I've already booked all of the arrangements for his sex change, without actually asking him if he wanted a sex change in the first place.  Its the old "fait accomplit" tactic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe "Monarda law" is the same thing, the Swine try to act as if EVERYBODY is clearly in agreement with something that they consider so fucking brilliant and obvious, when in fact its anything but either.

If you're in control of how people are talking, you are in control of what they're allowed or not allowed to talk about.

Its also a way to "force" people to accept it without saying "You must agree to this!".

You mean, in the way that you employed the tactic yourself, just a few hours ago? In this very thread?

Quote from: RPGPunditSo, just to review, we are all clear now that "Say yes or roll the dice" is either a monumentally fucking stupid concept; or that it actually means "say yes or no or roll the dice", in which case its utterly meaningless and thus a monumentally fucking useless concept?

Reading your diatribes (one I sidestep the landmine field of Red Herrings you ejaculate with every post), seeped in the most immature of logical fallacies (usually which you attribute to others, then employ yourself) makes me laugh as hearty as I do when I read essays from Ayn Rand.

Continue!  This is Entertainment!

Just a note at the outset here.  I'm attempting to give the most charitable possible reading of what you're saying as I can.  I hope you will reciprocate.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, the problem is with the underlying assumptions that fuel the statement.

I'm not sure I understand you, because to me there are no underlying assumptions of SYORTD (I'm not trying to coin a cutsie acronym here, I just don't want to type it out again and again).  Taken in context (which is the only way these paragraphs or any rules text make sense), it says that you should only roll for stuff that matters to you.  This is a point of view that everyone here seems to share.  Quoting it out of context and demanding people argue against your interpretation of it isn't a helpful way to discuss it.  Vincent didn't mean GMs should never be able to say "no" when he wrote that.  The handful of paragraphs SYORTD comes from never say the GM shouldn't be allowed to say "no," they say the GM should only roll when he feels it's important.

The only remnant of disagreement that remains here is the accusation that SYORTD has been bandied about as a revolutionary idea and that seems to offend some people.  But even that remnant isn't very strong, as most people seem to agree that it's not a brand-new concept, and that those who are energized by it maybe just needed to hear it phrased the way Vincent put it in order to get how helpful it is to only roll when it matters.

If someone comes onto a thread and says, "What a bunch of assholes you are!  Just say yes or roll!" then you will have my complete agreement that that this person is a jerk and not worth our time.  However, the bit of rules text which engendered the whole "say yes or roll the dice" debate we're having here is not an example of someone being a jerk.

QuoteAnd in their concern about "DM tyranny" they try to create a dictatorship of the playertariat (as someone called it here), that is far MORE likely to lead to dysfunctional groups led by a manipulative glory hound than if you just let the GM actually keep his testicles.

First, the person who called it a "playertariat" appeared to me to be joking, and did not seem to believe in or advocate such a thing.  The way your statement reads to me suggests that someone who defends Forge or indie games is espousing a playertariat.

Second, Forge games are not "obsessed with GM tyranny" as a rule.  I cannot think of one that is, in fact.  Can you name one, and provide specific evidence of its obsession with GM tyranny?  (Specific evidence would be along the lines of, "This specific statement says this thing which talks about GM tyranny.")  While there are some GMless games, even those are not obsessed with GM tyranny.  Instead, they are designed such that a specific GM isn't necessary, or that the role of the person saying what happens in the world changes from person to person during a session (that is, they have multiple GMs).

Incidentally, I consder d20 to be remarkably constraining on the GM.  I say this as someone who knows d20 rules pretty well (3.0 anyway) and GMed several ongoing campaigns of the game.  The level of exactitude in the rules means that one has to be extremely careful to get all the bonuses and stuff lined up juuuust right, and that if one's players are on their game, they can be constantly emasculating you by pointing out little errors or getting into arguments over how the rules work.  Now one may say that a "real GM" would tell the player that she will deal with his impudence later, but I do not believe the rules as written support this.  

QuoteThis too is a "rule" that can be horrifically abused by manipulative players. Why not let the GM be arbitrer of what is or is not bullshit, and then you actually solve most of the problems, by focusing on creating better more responsible GMs instead of trying to make the GMs powerless and irrelevant?

Any rule can be abused by manipulative players.  The D&D boards have a 5th level character who is legal by 3.5 rules who can kill gods.  While rule by consensus could be used to neuter the GM at every turn, it can also be used by the GM and other players to cut off stupidity of another player.

Most indie RPGs aren't very interested in the politics of player vs. GM power.  They are far more interested in trying to ensure that every player at the table--GM or not--is having fun.  The games and the community surrounding them encourage each participant to engage in dialogue with one another so--in the best games--you always know if your friend is enjoying herself.

But all this is a distraction from my point, and it doesn't seem you have addressed the core of it.  If you're concerned about greater player power leading to stupid, off-theme crap, most indie RPGs have rules that prevent it.  If that's the case, how can there be any concern that players will intoduce stupid off-theme crap when the GM or any other player can always say "no?"

At the risk of getting embroiled in the livelie awfullenesse that is this thread, I own a copy of Burning Wheel which is generally seen as a Forge game and IMO it is pretty trad.  The GM creates the world and folk in it, the players play their characters, it has interesting stuff and is I think a good game but there isn't much wouldn't have been familiar to me conceptually back in 1982 say.

That's not a criticism, just noting that these Forge games vary widely.  Then again, I'm never terribly sure what is a Forge game and what isn't.

Oh, and I have played My Life with Master, fun little game, again though we had a GM and players and everything.  It's a bit of a cross between a board game and an rpg in some ways, but it didn't seem to allow me to leap across the table and wave my nads in the GMs face while chanting "Take that you overbearing bastard", more's the pity*.


*Actually, the GM is a mate and it was a fun game, but any game that had rules letting you to do that would have to get at least some kudos.

Quote from: Andy KYou mean, in the way that you employed the tactic yourself, just a few hours ago? In this very thread?

No, that was just rhetorical duelling.

Rather, I mean like in the very way that I employed the tactic myself, with writing the Landmarks themselves.
I freely admit that I'm imitating the Theory Swines' tactics for this board, putting up the Landmarks and making them the defining "fundamental" that THIS board takes as a "given", to make sure that the Forgites can't come in here and subvert this thread with that tactic the way they have everywhere else on the fucking internet.

Think of it as a vaccination.

RPGPundit

Pundit:

Your and others reaction to much of this stuff only backs up the idea that it is a successful movement in RPGs.

It's the Kool-aid point.

And the reaction many people have to you proves the same thing.