Quote from: HaffrungHowever, I still feel any DM who makes real-time improvisations by fiat is going to be swimming against the tide in today's D&D climate.

Who the fuck do you people game with?

Quote from: StuartI think if there are rules in a game, people's expectations are that those are the rules of the game.  Rule Zero clauses not withstanding. Even if you agree on only using some of those rules, people expect those are the rules the game operates by.

And I do believe it's important that the rules be at least predictable; there's nothing worse for suspension of disbelief [and for blood pressure] than the physics of the world just changing arbitrarily. GMs shouldn't, if they want non-frustrated players, fundamentally alter the game during its course, and any changes probably ought to be agreed-upon by everyone at the table beforehand.

Not all groups work that way. Paul's group is a bunch of people who know each other away from the table, who in fact spend most of their time together not gaming, so to us, absolute GM control without input from players would be a good way to empty the room. We just wouldn't stand for it. I do understand, though, that some groups are basically just strangers, or are simply run by a control-hungry GM who thinks consulting the players on rules would destroy his finely-crafted game.

For myself, I favor a middle ground, like a democracy with a president: the players recommend courses of action - because a GM without players is just a geek in a room - but once the game starts and immediate decisions need to be made, the GM makes them, and once the game is over, they're debated, if necessary. I don't think we've once had a serious problem doing things this way, but our group, as I say, is not necessarily representative of other groups, and our game is most certainly not representative of other games.

Quote from: StuartIf you want more GM authority to ad lib -  have fewer rules.  If you want less GM authority - have more rules.

I like systems in which rules for practically everything are available, but not necessary. We spent years parachuting in Shadowrun before rules were available for it; it was nice to have those expansion rules, if we needed them, but obviously we didn't really need them. On the other hand, it's nice to know that if you want some rules for parachuting that have already been playtested by people you trust, they're there. Basically, I favor small, tight core rules, and a variety of well-tested optional rules. [But, FASA, I would like them all in the same book for once.]

Quote from: Pierce InverarityPundy, save this post:

I predict that in 2010, once the full version of the new edition is out, we will all convert to Hackmaster.

As witness my hand, this 29th of May, 2008,

P.I.

I would be astounded if this was right. It would have to be one hell of a game, and given that it apparently won't have any relation to D&D anymore, I don't see how that could happen.

Of course, 4e has no relation to D&D anymore, so we're about par for the course there. Still, if I won't play one, why would I play the other?

RPGPundit

At it's most basic and polarized level an RPG type game could be run like this:

Player role:  I say what my character does
GM role:  I say what happens next
Win: Entertaining experience and story*
Lose: Boring experience and story*

For this game all the dice rolls, rule books and sequence of play are just props.  They don't *really* have an affect on the game, who does what, and whether there's a win or loss.  It's the GM's responsibility to say what happens next.  Maybe he uses the dice or rules to help him decide what happens next, or gives the impression he's following their random results as long as those results are agreeable. He doesn't have to though.  He could feign looking at the rules or dice.  Or make no pretence about following them at all.

With this type of game the GM *isn't* playing the role of the referee.  They're a player, and in many ways its their game to play more than anyone else at the table.  If the goal of the game is "Entertaining experience and story" the GM has the largest role in getting to that goal.  It's their challenge to overcome -- their skills which are being most tested -- and more than anyone else they're the one playing the game.

At the other end of the spectrum would be a game where everything is clearly spelled out.  There is little or no room for interpretation or improvisation.  The GM is limited to acting as a referee and it's up to the players to reach the win conditions for the game.  Most sports are like this.

If the rules are clear enough a GM may not be required at all.  Most boardgames are like this -- although there are some where someone acts as "the banker" or such, which is like a referee.

Interestingly I don't know of many games that extremely limit the GM (or remove the role entirely) where the win continues to be "Entertaining experience and story" with actual mechanics that support this.** Either the experience, or the story, or *both* give way for other goals and ways to "win" the game.  If anyone has suggestions otherwise, I'd be happy to see them.**

I think there's a sweet-spot in the middle someplace (around level 4? ) where there's a good balance.  Or it requires new approaches.  It's worth considering what you can lose at each end of the spectrum though.

* I don't care one whit what your definition of story is :haw:
** No Storygame I'm aware of meets this criteria.  Not Dogs in the Vineyard.  Not My Life with Master.  Not Burning Empires. Not Polaris. etc.

Stuart, you are one step away from elightenment. Just drop the "story"!

Player role:  I say what my character does
GM role:  I say what happens next
Win: Entertaining experience

:pundit:

That first asterisk was all for you Sett. :haw: :haw:

Quote from: StuartIf the rules are clear enough a GM may not be required at all.  Most boardgames are like this -- although there are some where someone acts as "the banker" or such, which is like a referee.

4e includes a paragraph or two on how to do this, in the section of how to roll a dungeon, both of which seem incredibly strange to me, but I guess sometimes you don't have a computer available to you, which is what I'd use if I just wanted to run around finding treasure and killing monsters.

Quote from: RPGPunditI would be astounded if this was right. It would have to be one hell of a game, and given that it apparently won't have any relation to D&D anymore, I don't see how that could happen.

Of course, 4e has no relation to D&D anymore, so we're about par for the course there. Still, if I won't play one, why would I play the other?

RPGPundit

I'm basing my hunch on the fact that Cali bought Aces & Eights and made some positive noises about it. About a Western game! That's major. (On that note, I'm surprised you haven't bought or reviewed A&8 yet--you like the genre, no?)

HM will be based on A&8. The D&D tongue-in-cheekness will be gone, but if the system is able to appeal to D&D grognards even in its Western incarnation, then I'm very hopeful for the fantasy version.

Quote from: Engine4e includes a paragraph or two on how to do this, in the section of how to roll a dungeon, both of which seem incredibly strange to me, but I guess sometimes you don't have a computer available to you, which is what I'd use if I just wanted to run around finding treasure and killing monsters.

Random dungeon generation has a long and rich tradition in RPGs.  Its in the AD&D 1e DMG too.  Its one of the things I saw so far in 4e that I was pleased to note there.

In my own RPG, "Forward... to Adventure!" I include a random dungeon design system.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI'm basing my hunch on the fact that Cali bought Aces & Eights and made some positive noises about it. About a Western game! That's major. (On that note, I'm surprised you haven't bought or reviewed A&8 yet--you like the genre, no?)

I do like the genre, and if Kenzer (or anyone else) were to send me a playtest copy I would gladly review it.

QuoteHM will be based on A&8. The D&D tongue-in-cheekness will be gone, but if the system is able to appeal to D&D grognards even in its Western incarnation, then I'm very hopeful for the fantasy version.

Yeah, see, but then claiming that HM will somehow be the game we "all will play" makes little or no sense; given that there are TONS of other old school fantasy games out there whose rules have no direct connection to D&D (my own FtA! being one of them, for example).  

RPGPundit

...or, like, 3.x!

Quote from: RPGPunditRandom dungeon generation has a long and rich tradition in RPGs.  Its in the AD&D 1e DMG too.  Its one of the things I saw so far in 4e that I was pleased to note there.

I guess I understand: when my friends are watching art house movies, I'm watching action films. Sometimes I read pulp science fiction. I even like Friends. Escapism isn't alien to me; it's just escapism in roleplaying that's strange to me. A random dungeon just doesn't contain enough mental candy for my appetite; I'd spend all my time thinking about how little sense it all made. As I often say, everyone enjoys something different in their games.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn my own RPG, "Forward... to Adventure!" I include a random dungeon design system.

Really. I can add that to the list of things that don't make me want to buy it, but I doubt you'd want to buy [or play] an RPG I wrote, either! Different strokes.

Quote from: Kyle AaronDo we need some game book to tell us to ignore the game book if we want to?

I've been surprised at the amount of praise directed at various games that make a big deal about those things by people who apparently felt liberated by the rules telling them that they have permission to ignore or change them.  Some people apparently need to rules to tell them that it's OK.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineBut let's not be fundamentalists here. The important thing is the culture that grows up around 4e, not the literal wording of the corebooks.

You know what's interesting - if you argue with the Gygaxian grognards about the rules of AD&D, particularly the silly ones, the first thing they'll tell you is, "But that's not how people actually played the game. It doesn't matter if there are hit locations, weapon speeds, etc., in AD&D because no one used them."

But if we talk about 4e - even based on quotes that may or may not be accurate - what the books says is all that matters.

Seanchai

Quote from: StuartThe important distinction between most games (and by the sounds of it 4e) and previous RPGs which explicitly include a "Rule Zero" statement is that in those games it actually says the GM can disregard rules during play whenever they choose.

Does that bother you about AD&D, too? Because that sort of stuff is all over that DMG. It says, "Here's the rules. You can disregard the rules. But follow the rules. If you don't follow the rules, you're not playing AD&D."

Seanchai