Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652325The whole "macho patriarchal power trip" thing was definitely quite odd. Don't really know much about Luke Crane, but I see this sort of mindset elsewhere (almost entirley on the internet) and I don't get it. I mean if someone wants to play games where the GMs authority is more evenly distributed i have no objection, but I don't get the insistance that people who want a more traditional GM role are somehow on a perverted power trip or just want players to suffer. It is the assumption about our motives or goals that drives me a bit nuts.

Those kind of statements say a heck of a lot more about the person making them than they do about the group they're criticizing. If a woman were to say "no group of women can be friends long before someone tries to sleep with someone else's husband," the natural response is to feel either pity or contempt for her - not to regard all women as disloyal friends.

I think Luke is criticising a specific rhetorical reaction rather than painting a whole group of people as 'macho patriarchal power trippers'. I find it pretty reasonable to suggest that, if we accept the premise that the DM can be seen as a player and the rpg as a game, the DM should be held to ruleset like the players and not the arbiter of said rules.

I think it's just a difference in opinion, as the original role of the DM was to be exactly that, but I don't see any problem with the other side of the argument either.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652391I think Luke is criticising a specific rhetorical reaction rather than painting a whole group of people as 'macho patriarchal power trippers'. I find it pretty reasonable to suggest that, if we accept the premise that the DM can be seen as a player and the rpg as a game, the DM should be held to ruleset like the players and not the arbiter of said rules.

I think it's just a difference in opinion, as the original role of the DM was to be exactly that, but I don't see any problem with the other side of the argument either.

I think it is totally reasonable to suggest that power be distributed differently or the GM's responsibilities redefined. If that is what you like, that is what you like. Not one thing wrong with someone saying that. But the passage I read was not just proposing one style of play or a new approach to GMing, it was an all out attack on people who like the traditional Gm role and it was quite frankly a post dripping with hate. Now, that might not be a reflection of Mr. crane's current position. Obviously the post was made in the heat of an internet argument and people say things they dont really mean in those, but I don't think the post itself is defensible at all.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652400I think it is totally reasonable to suggest that power be distributed differently or the GM's responsibilities redefined. If that is what you like, that is what you like. Not one thing wrong with someone saying that. But the passage I read was not just proposing one style of play or a new approach to GMing, it was an all out attack on people who like the traditional Gm role and it was quite frankly a post dripping with hate. Now, that might not be a reflection of Mr. crane's current position. Obviously the post was made in the heat of an internet argument and people say things they dont really mean in those, but I don't think the post itself is defensible at all.

I don't think the post itself in anyway diminishes the point though. Which is why I was trying to redirect away from "Luke Crane is a poophead because he insulted me".

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652391I think Luke is criticising a specific rhetorical reaction rather than painting a whole group of people as 'macho patriarchal power trippers'. I find it pretty reasonable to suggest that, if we accept the premise that the DM can be seen as a player and the rpg as a game, the DM should be held to ruleset like the players and not the arbiter of said rules.

The problem with that approach is it kneecaps what many regard as the primary appeal and strength of RPGs - the flexibility of a human moderator. If you can't find a fair-minded and flexible moderator, then I suppose you could bind all of the players alike to the rules set, and still enjoy a kind of truncated RPG experience. But if I were going to play an RPG without a dynamic human moderator, I'd just as soon solo a Fighting Fantasy gamebook.

Quote from: Haffrung;652409The problem with that approach is it kneecaps what many regard as the primary appeal and strength of RPGs - the flexibility of a human moderator. If you can't find a fair-minded and flexible moderator, then I suppose you could bind all of the players alike to the rules set, and still enjoy a kind of truncated RPG experience. But if I were going to play an RPG without a dynamic human moderator, I'd just as soon solo a Fighting Fantasy gamebook.

I'm not sure I agree. It may kneecap flexibility but it's usually the flexibility to be a dick to the players. If you mean flexibility in the creative sense then I definitely disagree. Having a ruleset to work within does not hinder creativity. Then again, I'm the type of person who responds well to working within parameters as I tend to get paralysed and overwhelmed otherwise.

However, why does it make it any less of an rpg experience? This seems a bit mean spirited as you're talking an opinion and trying to make it a fact.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652413I'm not sure I agree. It may kneecap flexibility but it's usually the flexibility to be a dick to the players.

Stop imposing that most GMs are dysfunctional beings who, given the slightest authority when having fun with friends (this is an important distinction, as getting real authority for serious activities is different), will use it to destroy everyone else's fun.

If you don't trust your GM, leave the table. And really, if people leave your table en - masse, you don't have exactly anyone to play with anyway.

Every, and I swear, every time the role of GM at the table is discussed, people start behaving like as if you have just won over the heart of Germans with aggressive rhetoric.

QuoteIf you mean flexibility in the creative sense then I definitely disagree. Having a ruleset to work within does not hinder creativity. Then again, I'm the type of person who responds well to working within parameters as I tend to get paralysed and overwhelmed otherwise.

Except that a strict adherence to some ruleset will hinder creativity, both on players' and GM's side. There are just situations in an RPG that a ruleset will have trouble emulating on the fly, as per the most famous "kicking sand in the eye during fight". Which is why most storygames' feature mechanics, where the characters' abilities are more focused around his capabilities within the narrative medium, rather than  the actual abilities - as suddenly you can narrate the action however you want, since the chances of failing/passing the check remain the same.

Quote from: Rincewind1;652415

Stop imposing that most GMs are dysfunctional beings who, given the slightest authority when having fun with friends (this is an important distinction, as getting real authority for serious activities is different), will use it to destroy everyone else's fun.

I didn't say anything about GMs being dysfunctional beings. I said, games with rulesets for GMs tend to set up a framework in which it is harder for GMs to be dicks. That's not a reflection on anybody, stop imposing you're own rhetoric onto mine.

QuoteExcept that a strict adherence to some ruleset will hinder creativity, both on players' and GM's side. There are just situations in an RPG that a ruleset will have trouble emulating on the fly, as per the most famous "kicking sand in the eye during fight". Which is why most storygames' feature mechanics, where the characters' abilities are more focused around his capabilities within the narrative medium, rather than  the actual abilities - as suddenly you can narrate the action however you want, since the chances of failing/passing the check remain the same.

For some people but it is not because of the ruleset, it is because some people find parameters limiting. To assert that as universal is silly, which is the essence of my point here. I should also point out, that excluding or belittling people who prefer working within limitations is quite dogmatic and I fail to see how implying that those people's games are somehow any less of an rpg is a reasonable assertion.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652413It may kneecap flexibility but it's usually the flexibility to be a dick to the players.

'We must protect innocent players from dickhead referees and their ball-kicking rulings!'

So, what's it like to be an abject failure as a human being, Kanye? Be specific - this is for posterity, y'know.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;652427'We must protect innocent players from dickhead referees and their ball-kicking rulings!'

So, what's it like to be an abject failure as a human being, Kanye? Be specific - this is for posterity, y'know.

I infer must, you did. If you're asking for why I prefer GM rules, that's a twofold answer. I'm a grad student, so I have very little time to think or work on my own philosophy of 'rulings'. I find having a clear structure to follow saves time and I can focus on putting together a game quicker. It is largely why I prefer the focus of Moldvay to the toolbox of advanced. The second is, I don't usually get to play with people who are friends. I usually play in a club setup and so I have no idea who will be turning up from fortnight to fortnight. Rules help minimise arguments that rulings are prone to spark, especially with people who are not your friends.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652405I don't think the post itself in anyway diminishes the point though. Which is why I was trying to redirect away from "Luke Crane is a poophead because he insulted me".

I dont think the point was any good either. The insult and the point are intertwined in this case (i.e. do it my way or you are an asshat gm on a power trip). If he has a point about how his approach is great for x, y or z reason, its entirely lost by his attempt to make it a badwrongfun issue.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652432I dont think the point was any good either. The insult and the point are intertwined in this case (i.e. do it my way or you are an asshat gm on a power trip). If he has a point about how his approach is great for x, y or z reason, its entirely lost by his attempt to make it a badwrongfun issue.

If that were true, then 99.9% of these discussions are lost to badwrongfun arguments. It's just white noise, I guess you can either read between the lines or disregard it completely but I find his point salient.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652405I don't think the post itself in anyway diminishes the point though. Which is why I was trying to redirect away from "Luke Crane is a poophead because he insulted me".

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652440If that were true, then 99.9% of these discussions are lost to badwrongfun arguments. It's just white noise, I guess you can either read between the lines or disregard it completely but I find his point salient.

In your opinion what point is he expressing?

To me, his point seems to be a false choice between "playing a game as designed versus letting one player go on a macho patriarchal power trip"

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652445In your opinion what point is he expressing?

QuoteRules are rules. A game is designed in a certain way to encourage certain behavior.

QuoteRPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.

I think this is the most important part of his rant. I agree with the premise that RPGs are games and games have rules and the GM is just another player. Rules are rules and it is reasonable to expect all players to agree to play by a set of them.

I understand some people view the GM as more important than just another player and I understand this comes from early war-games (as arbiter) and early D&D (when the DM literally needed to build the ruleset themselves). I never had to do that and I prefer clear statements on my role in a game.

Although I don't necessarily agree we have to protect players from bad GMing behaviours, largely because I think most groups are friends and as such you don't need such precautions, I don't see any harm in attempts to limit the abuse of the rules, on either side. It's why I agree with balance because I think limiting one player taking advantage of the system to be a good thing and if everyone at the table were to take these liberties then it makes the game arbitrary. If the GM is another player, as I believe, then I don't see the harm in doing the same for that side of the table.

I choose to ignore the rest of his rant as just a continuation of people arguing over the true objective essence of games, which I view as a stupid and impractical debate.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;652450I think this is the most important part of his rant. I agree with the premise that RPGs are games and games have rules and the GM is just another player. Rules are rules and it is reasonable to expect all players to agree to play by a set of them.

I understand some people view the GM as more important than just another player and I understand this comes from early war-games (as arbiter) and early D&D (when the DM literally needed to build the ruleset themselves). I never had to do that and I prefer clear statements on my role in a game.

Although I don't necessarily agree we have to protect players from bad GMing behaviours, largely because I think most groups are friends and as such you don't need such precautions, I don't see any harm in attempts to limit the abuse of the rules, on either side. It's why I agree with balance because I think limiting one player taking advantage of the system to be a good thing and if everyone at the table were to take these liberties then it makes the game arbitrary. If the GM is another player, as I believe, then I don't see the harm in doing the same for that side of the table.

I choose to ignore the rest of his rant as just a continuation of people arguing over the true objective essence of games, which I view as a stupid and impractical debate.

Frankly, your post seems more polite but also appears to have many of the same assumptions. I think there is nothing wrong with assigning the same kind of status to a player as a GM of you like, but I also dont agree with the suggestion that treating the GM as a different role (it really isnt about being special) than the player is somehow bad or a relic of the past. There are valid reasons for giving the GM power to overide rules (and we've discussed them endlessly on other threads so not going to go into that here) or to devise on the fly rulings. It isn't the only way to play, I respect your right to play the game how you want, but there is nothing wrong with it and it has value.

One point i would disagree with is about rpgs being special. I think rpgs and board games are very different and one of the things that can make an rpg experience so much more enjoyable is the ability of the people at the table to go beyond what is in the book or the pieces on the board.