Quote from: Ian Absentia;361011Do you enjoy their games?

!i!

Not especially. The gurps guy can't hold it together for very long anyway, and I quit the Exalted game.

I'm back in the Exalted group now, but a different guy is running Dark Heresy.

Quote from: Sigmund;361059I've only encountered one GM in all the years I've been playing RPGs that I couldn't agree with.

How many times have you disagreed with a call, however? How many times have you disagreed with a call only to have the GM capitulate?

Because that's the discussion - whether or not GMs will basically conform to the group's desires. It's great that you like most of your GMs, but that doesn't speak to the point.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;361115How many times have you disagreed with a call, however? How many times have you disagreed with a call only to have the GM capitulate?

Because that's the discussion - whether or not GMs will basically conform to the group's desires. It's great that you like most of your GMs, but that doesn't speak to the point.

Seanchai

This post makes me think you didn't actually read my post you quoted at all. While I do indeed like the people who served as my GMs for RPGing, that isn't what I said in my post. I said that I only encountered one with whom I couldn't reach an agreement. This means that most of them I very occasionally disagreed with on minor points but was able to reach an agreement with subsequently. Sometimes I gave more, sometimes they did. It's the way it works IMO. The one GM I didn't mesh with I didn't game with more than once.

Why do you place so much weight on whether or not a GM (or anyone else for that matter) will capitulate to your point of view? I seem to notice a trend with you not to give anyone so much as an inch in any disagreement you are involved in, even when you have been demonstrated to be inaccurate. Obviously I'm not going to search out every discussion you've had, and even if I did it would hardly demonstrate the entire picture of your relations with others, so I could be completely wrong. It's just an observation I have made.

Quote from: Seanchai;361107One would hope, but there are other factors such as friendship and availability of space and other GMs that come into play. From my personal experience and what I've read on the Internet, it unusually isn't that quick if it happens at all...

Seanchai

I'd bet at least some of those people who you hear complaining on the Internet are actually enjoying their games... or maybe playing them because they enjoy having something to complain about.

Judging real-life gaming based on Internet complaining is a bit like judging love based on Dear Abby columns.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;361163I'd bet at least some of those people who you hear complaining on the Internet are actually enjoying their games... or maybe playing them because they enjoy having something to complain about.

You said basically the same about me. But that wasn't the case and we had a coup and replaced the DM.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;361159I said that I only encountered one with whom I couldn't reach an agreement.

Sorry. That's not how I read that sentence.

But you didn't say if the agreements you reached were actual compromises or just the GM talking you into agreeing with his position.

Quote from: Sigmund;361159Why do you place so much weight on whether or not a GM (or anyone else for that matter) will capitulate to your point of view?

"The GM can be consulted, and can work with the players to arrive at an agreeable method of resolution based on the in-game circumstances, which is one of their jobs."

It makes it sounds as if the GM coming to some kind of agreement is more common than GMs ignoring the players and making the ruling he would have made had the players not objected.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;361210"The GM can be consulted, and can work with the players to arrive at an agreeable method of resolution based on the in-game circumstances, which is one of their jobs."

It makes it sounds as if the GM coming to some kind of agreement is more common than GMs ignoring the players and making the ruling he would have made had the players not objected.

Seanchai

In my experience that is more common. Note that not every ruling my GMs have made were comfortable or pleasant for me in the context of the game, but just because I didn't like 'em didn't mean I didn't agree with them.

Quote from: Seanchai;361207You said basically the same about me. But that wasn't the case and we had a coup and replaced the DM.

Seanchai

It's not clear to me how long it took you to vote the guy off the island, but the fact that you eventually did is the sort of GM-finding-himself-without-players scenario I was predicting.

In the earlier thread where you (sort of) described the game the only thing you were clear about was that you disliked the dude's DMing style and that you (and others) kept going back week after week.

I therefore concluded that however sub-par it was, it must have been better than whatever the alternatives were. I seem to recall you saying some of it was fun (so the guy wasn't *completely* failing to delivery), and I'd guess (but you didn't clearly say this) that maybe you had hopes that he'd improve and were willing to give him some runway to do so.

All of that sounds reasonable to me and I haven't made any guesses about whether or not you (specifically) enjoy having something to complain about... but I bet some people do.

I see posts (not yours) where people make their weekly roleplaying game sound like being waterboarded -- I find those /unconvincing./

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;361268It's not clear to me how long it took you to vote the guy off the island, but the fact that you eventually did is the sort of GM-finding-himself-without-players scenario I was predicting.

Three or four months. I suppose you could call that "quickly." I wouldn't, however. "Quick" to my mind would be a session or two.

Quote from: -E.;361268I therefore concluded that however sub-par it was, it must have been better than whatever the alternatives were.

People aren't rational actors. They don't always maximize benefits and minimize costs. Sometimes they do odd things they don't like for odd reasons.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;361354People aren't rational actors. They don't always maximize benefits and minimize costs. Sometimes they do odd things they don't like for odd reasons.

But, wouldn't that lead to "the opposite of roleplaying"?  You know, not acting rationally on any information that their characters might conceivably know?

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361365But, wouldn't that lead to "the opposite of roleplaying"?  You know, not acting rationally on any information that their characters might conceivably know?

!i!

:rotfl:

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361365You know, not acting rationally on any information that their characters might conceivably know?

They might.

Players understanding the mechanics of a game and using said understanding of mechanics that pertain to realms of knowledge a particular character would be familiar with as the basis for that character's actions probably wouldn't fall into that category, however.

It would explain why someone would want to jump on a grenade if he thought the end was going to turn out alright.

Seanchai

Quote from: CRKrueger;359252Lately I've seen a lot of comments about simple, rules light systems and how they "get out of the way" of roleplaying.

I'll grant that games with extensive metagaming aspects, either gamist or narrativist can definitely get in the way of roleplaying, but most of the time people use that phrase, I think they're referring to the level of crunch.

Could someone give me some example of games that have systems that "get in the way" of roleplaying and how they get in the way?

D&D 3rd edition: feats, spells, abilities framing their applications extremely narrowly, tactical considerations that focus on the rules themselves, and not the actual situations they are supposed to depict, a mumbo-jumbo lingo that overrides suspension of disbelief.

D&D 4th edition: 3rd edition on uber-steroids. The rules ARE the game. Immersion and suspension of disbelief are incidental, side-effects of the group's gaming style, and not an actual focus of the game's original design.

Rules-heavy systems are usually culprits in this, in the way they more-or-less impose gamism, bean-counting and other metagame considerations as an important part of the table's play time, but some rules light system certainly may detract from role-playing as well. No examples come to my mind right at the moment, but I'm sure we can find some.

I guess that to have a rules system that doesn't become an obstacle to role-playing, it should not be overwhelming in terms of size and/or minutiae, allow for some extrapolation on the part of the group, and include relatively instinctive game mechanics that, once learned, just remain in the background and are later used without putting much thought into it.

But these considerations are subjective, in the sense that each gaming group will have different requirements, different ways to digest and handle this or that rule, and use them afterwards. Like pretty much anything else having to do with RPGs.

Glad to see you post gain Benoist! It's been a long time.

Quote from: boulet;361890Glad to see you post gain Benoist! It's been a long time.

Thanks! I'm glad to be back, I must say.