Quote from: Gib;624243No, it is comparing bad gming to child molestation

That's politically correct bullshit, and you know it. I am NOT comparing it to real life child molestation. You have no fucking idea who you are talking about, and how actual child molestation relates to my experiences, my work, or my religion for that matter, Gib, so kindly go fuck yourself.

Quote from: jeff37923;624238So tell us what play experiences work better when everyone has an equal amount of power, because I bet that they are not tabletop RPGs.

I didn't say that everyone should have an equal amount of power. Just that it should be less unequal. Even without the ability to fudge the rules, the GM in just about every game still has a big role to play in shaping the game by setting target numbers, framing conflicts, running NPCs, etc.

The kinds of games that benefit from this are a) ones that focus on challenge and tactics, where the rules are supposed to be a neutral and impassibe arbiter of what happens, and b) ones that try to give players a more equal role in driving the story forward.

Quote from: soviet;624250The kinds of games that benefit from this are a) ones that focus on challenge and tactics, where the rules are supposed to be a neutral and impassibe arbiter of what happens, and b) ones that try to give players a more equal role in driving the story forward.

and c) games that are all about player creativity and imagination.

Quote from: Benoist;624247You have no fucking idea who you are talking about, and how actual child molestation relates to my experiences, my work, or my religion for that matter.

Right back at you, genius.
Hiding behind "PC bullshit" how unexpected.

Quote from: Benoist;624239It might not be worded nice, but if you read the actual arguments that lead there, you'll see that's what the "rules as the final arbiters of the going-ons at the game table" come down to: a belief that rules can fix people, and that bad GMs ought to be cornered into not sucking by the rules themselves, and a general lack of trust for the other participants in the game which will "break the game", make "arbitrary rulings," will ipso facto "never be consistent", and the like. It's a symptom of a lack of trust in human beings to collaborate in a game of their imaginations and actually play together in a rational manner, for the benefit of all, and not just themselves, basically.

Nah.

Quote from: soviet;624236If one person has the power to veto surprises, by definition there will be fewer surprises happening. Unless they never use that power, in which case what's the point of having it?

What about situations when that undefined surprise results in a Total Party Kill?

I was running a d20 Traveller game and in the first hour of play, due to a fluke die roll, the Players had their ship destroyed in a misjump. Surprise! Now as GM, I decided that the ship was not destroyed, but misjumped into another subsector and the Players had to find their way back. I used my veto power to remove the Surprise! and ameliorate the dice roll result into a Surprise! that was not a Total Party Kill in the first hour of the game.

Judgement is the key distinction here.

What you are advocating would have resulted in the Players getting their PCs killed in the first hour of gaming. What then? Roll up new ones? Why should they when their first PCs were snuffed out so unceremoneously?

Benoist, do you think that players should also have the right to break or ignore the rules of the game at will? I mean, you trust the people you play with, right?

Most of this conversation has, of course, missed the point.

Namely, that adjusting a game to you and your group's preferences used to be a given, but with more tightly focused games, it's more "my way or the highway" - my way, being the designers way.

I bet most of the people on this board have one or two games they are more comfortable DMing than others. The game just fits what you want out of a game and your group responds better to it.

Yes, that even means house-ruling, which, i feel, is the root of the discussion.

People are aware that house-ruling doesn't necessarily mean wholesale changes, right?

Quite often, it's just filling a gap in the rule-set that you and your group find enjoyable.

I trust no rule-set, because i know that it won't survive contact with me and my group.

Quote from: soviet;624250The kinds of games that benefit from this are a) ones that focus on challenge and tactics, where the rules are supposed to be a neutral and impassibe arbiter of what happens, and b) ones that try to give players a more equal role in driving the story forward.

So war/board games, and storygames.  Got it.

To me the whole point of the rpg is to occupy the middle ground between these.

Quote from: soviet;624255Benoist, do you think that players should also have the right to break or ignore the rules of the game at will? I mean, you trust the people you play with, right?

As long as the players are only making choices from their character's PoV, then they don't even need to know the rules and it would be impossible to break them, as rules should cover the outcome of events, which has nothing to do with players.

Quote from: Gib;624252Right back at you, genius.
Hiding behind "PC bullshit" how unexpected.

Going about your own private feud bitching across several threads on various proxy issues because I dared to disagree with you about something AD&D related ages ago that made you blow a fuse and ragequit the forum, how unexpected. And it is, unexpected, really. I must really have pissed you off back then.

Quote from: Benoist;624261Going about your own private feud bitching across several threads on various proxy issues because I dared to disagree with you about something AD&D related ages ago

I...feel like I've actually said this to you before, Benoist.  WEIRD.

Quote from: jeff37923;624254What about situations when that undefined surprise results in a Total Party Kill?

I was running a d20 Traveller game and in the first hour of play, due to a fluke die roll, the Players had their ship destroyed in a misjump. Surprise! Now as GM, I decided that the ship was not destroyed, but misjumped into another subsector and the Players had to find their way back. I used my veto power to remove the Surprise! and ameliorate the dice roll result into a Surprise! that was not a Total Party Kill in the first hour of the game.

Judgement is the key distinction here.

What you are advocating would have resulted in the Players getting their PCs killed in the first hour of gaming. What then? Roll up new ones? Why should they when their first PCs were snuffed out so unceremoneously?

Absolutely there are some play styles where this kind of fudging is a good thing. I'm just saying that there are some playstyles where it's bad. But that in itself is contingent on choosing the right system. If I'm playing a challenge-focused game I would choose my system carefully based on the level of risk to the PCs I wanted to have. Last time I ran this kind of game I used AD&D 2, rolling everything in the open with target numbers etc said out loud, and it was great fun. We had loads of near TPKs, including a memorable one with a carrion crawler that took down every PC bar one before getting shot down at the last minute. if that last PC had lost initiative, missed, or not rolled enough damage with his arrow, it would have been a TPK. It really was an awesome session.

Next time I run this kind of game I'm thinking of using Rolemaster. But maybe I'd better throw in a few NPC henchmen as well, just so we have a few more spare bodies knocking round when things get messy. :-)

By the same token, when I want to play a storygame style approach, I choose a system where PC death cannot happen randomly such as Other Worlds. Normally the stakes of failure are things like NPCs getting killed, cities being overrun, special items being broken, and things like that. Having said that, last night we did put a character's life on the line and he only made it by about 5 points on a d100 roll. But we did that consciously because the situation was important enough that the PC dying as a result would have been an appropriate consequence.

Quote from: soviet;624250I didn't say that everyone should have an equal amount of power. Just that it should be less unequal. Even without the ability to fudge the rules, the GM in just about every game still has a big role to play in shaping the game by setting target numbers, framing conflicts, running NPCs, etc.

Instead of crafting rules to ensure that the GM is acting fairly, why not just create ways to train or teach or advise people to become better GMs?

Quote from: soviet;624250The kinds of games that benefit from this are a) ones that focus on challenge and tactics, where the rules are supposed to be a neutral and impassibe arbiter of what happens, and b) ones that try to give players a more equal role in driving the story forward.

I think you need to look up what the word "arbiter" means.

So what happens when the Players do something that is not in the rules?

How does having a GM remove Player ability to have a "more equal role in driving the story forward"?

Quote from: misterguignol;624262I...feel like I've actually said this to you before, Benoist.  WEIRD.

Yeah. I know. Isn't it? And I have my own private band of haters too. They'll be in shortly, I'm sure. It's kinda like vultures, really.