Quote from: The Worid;300909This is my favored option. I don't mean that all parts of the game should be subject to collaboration (I'm no Forgie), and ultimately the GM's say is law.

In the example provided, I agree, although an answer better be forthcoming pretty quickly. But really, I don't think we're talking about the speed of a bear, in most cases. It's more like, "How many guards are on the wall?",  "Does the suspect you're tailing give you the shake?", "Does the sheriff listen to you when you tell him about the zombies?", "Do you get in trouble with the authorities for beating up the janitor when you were caught sneaking around the professor's lab?", "Is the secret formula in the safe?"

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300912When rpg theorists begin their essays by telling us that,

   "My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated."

or,

   "Roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours."

I think it fair to say it's very likely they're just crap GMs.

Not at all. It's fair to say their experiences when it comes to gaming is limited. For some gamers the above is spot on. Most times it's a clash of expectations, but they think they have bad players or bad GMs but this does not mean it's everybody experience, although I'm sure most gamers have been through this at one time or another but have realized what they want out their sessions and have found like minded individuals to game with.

QuoteWhen theories of how best to design rpgs and run game sessions are developed by the people who are the crappiest in play, this shapes the kinds of discussions we have.

Well, the games may be based on dodgy design prinicples but most people who play these games don't necessarily subscribe to them. Most of it is just a different approach to gaming. I know I run many Forge games but think the theory behind them are utter bollocks. Of course people like me are totally drowned out by the rhetoric from both sides.

QuoteIt's like having a cookbook written by someone who always burns their toast. Things that most gamers do instinctively or without much trouble - like accepting GM fiat - become strangely controversial.

I don't think gamers have ever just intinctively or without much trouble accepted GM fiat, like most things gaming, it's has always varied from group to group. So-called theorist make the mistake of assuming their experiences are universal.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;300916Not at all. It's fair to say their experiences when it comes to gaming is limited.

Whether their experiences are limited, or their experiences are that every time they play it's awful (the common element in all someone's dysfunctional relationships is themselves), either way if they're unaware of how limited their experiences are, or unaware how crap they are, and so any discussions they have about gaming will come from that self-blindness.

Quote from: David RWell, the games may be based on dodgy design prinicples but most people who play these games don't necessarily subscribe to them.

That's irrelevant to what I said - I said their incomplete and wrong understanding of gaming shaped "the kind of discussions they have."

Crap players can just drift from group to group; crap GMs are more likely to end up without game groups at all. Which leads them, as I said, with no refuge but rpg theory, arguments about "canon" and similar wankery.

None of which says anything about their favourite games in play. James M's favourite game is some sort of old D&D, Abyssal Maw's some form of D&D4e, Settembrini some form of D&D3.5, Ron Edwards' anything he himself wrote, and so on; all of these are quite different games, but all these guys are loons. They're loons in that they ascribe their poor game play experiences to abstract stuff, rather than just to being or playing with dickheads; and they dismiss other people's experiences are meaningless or say they don't really understand them.

The worst sin of the Forge-derived games has little to do with the games as such, but simply their poor writing. The writing is poor because the design notes, play style advice and rules are all mixed together. In this the game writers are not unique, it's characteristic of all vanity writing, writing we do for fun and ego rather than for money.

The poor rpg theory, poor because it's based on incomplete experiences or the person being a or playing with dickheads, this does surprisingly little to influence the game design, but a lot to influence the writing.

Quote from: David RI don't think gamers have ever just intinctively or without much trouble accepted GM fiat, like most things gaming, it's has always varied from group to group.

Of course it varies in degree. But all accept it to some degree.

"You meet in an inn and decide to adventure together."
"No, you can't be a ninja."
"When you fall off the wall, there's a pavement below, and a canal along it. So you've a fifty-fifty chance of hitting the pavement or the canal, roll."
"This weaponsmith will pay... um... one-quarter the retail value for second-hand weapons."
"If you don't roll any attribute above 12, we can say your guy was stillborn, roll another."

Most of these things, players aren't going to blink at. There's a certain level of GM fiat which almost all players will accept. They'll argue it a bit if it goes against their wishes for their character - "but why can't I be a cyberninja in the ancient Mayan world?" - but on the whole these things are accepted. Like "canon", they're rarely controversial in game groups, only in online discussions.

If the GM is obviously ignoring the rules and just deciding everything, then players will usually get upset. That's because it gives a player no basis on which to plan their character's actions; it might work, it might not, it's all up to the GM's whim, the decision they make might go one way this session, another way next session.

But between what almost every player will accept, and pure GM fiat with no rules, there's of course a huge middle ground where most game sessions happen. And most gamers accept that instinctively and without much trouble. There's sometimes a bit of adjustment at the beginning of a new campaign with a new group, but that's usually sorted out within 4 or so sessions - most people compromise, one player may get pissed off and leave, or a truly atrocious GM may have everyone leave. But after that adjustment period, people do accept things.

The thing is that many people when they hear "GM fiat" they think of "arbitrary" and from that think "unpredictable" and "inconsistent" and "random".

I understand this worry. I recently played in a campaign where GM fiat was used to determine xp. We might get 8xp one session and 0xp the next, and in both sessions we'd been active players, nobody had done anything really brilliant or really stupid, etc; it just depended on the mood of the GM. It's not a coincidence, I think, that the same GM inflicted a "rocks fall, you die" of a session's length on us.

So the GM fiat power can be used well - to make the session more fun and fulfilling - or badly. But in practice most GMs use the power alright, and most players accept it. Again, they won't silently accept each and every decision the GM makes - but they'll accept most, and accept the power itself.

Quote from: David RSo-called theorist make the mistake of assuming their experiences are universal.

Of course. But I think that if you game with enough people, you can make some generalisations. We shouldn't expect scientific rigour in these generalisations, but they're still useful anyway. You need a breadth (play with lots of gamers) and depth (lots of time with a few gamers) of experiences to be able to make these generalisations.

If someone's stated experiences are that most gamers they meet are tired, bitter and frustrated, or that a session is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours, then either that person has gamed with few people and they were just unlucky, or else the person is an annoying dork. So either they're incompetent or dorks, and in both cases their game play or design advice won't be very helpful to us. That won't stop them trying to give it to us, of course, because they have no group to keep them busy.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300912When rpg theorists begin their essays by telling us that,

   "My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated."

or,

   "Roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours."

I think it fair to say it's very likely they're just crap GMs.

When theories of how best to design rpgs and run game sessions are developed by the people who are the crappiest in play, this shapes the kinds of discussions we have. It's like having a cookbook written by someone who always burns their toast. Things that most gamers do instinctively or without much trouble - like accepting GM fiat - become strangely controversial.

I really like how you started out, but not where you ended up.  As we've been through before, DM fiat isn't a game.  It is exactly what most real world roleplaying is: a teaching activity.  However, as fantasy roleplaying, as opposed to non-hobby, real world roleplaying has no actual reality in which to test the validity of the behavior roleplayed, the determination of successful roleplaying is entirely fantasy.  But that's the big difference between roleplaying in the real world and in hobby RPGs: our roleplaying has no bearing on real world roles.  So in order to allow success roles must be defined prior to play by the game designer.  Players cannot successfully play roles that were not determined beforehand.  This is why modules and campaign settings need game designers to create them before play.  Making this DM fiat is changing success in the game into a matter of pleasing the DM, not determining the correct action.  (it is this distinction that is attacked, albeit deceitfully, under the rubric of "Despot DMs")  

In the real world, it is generally accepted that a teacher who uses roleplaying will not lie to his or her students.  And even if they do lie those lies can be determined through playing the same roles in our actual world - living in reality being the only time we are ever roleplaying 100%.  In fantasy/hobby roleplaying that verification is impossible as the roles are fantasy fictions, not culturally held fictions.  So the game elements must be not only be prepared and designed beforehand, but must also be followed truthfully throughout in order for Players to have a game to succeed within.


What I did like about your post is how you rightly characterize Forge theory and theorists.  In general, many tend to hate roleplaying games and people who roleplay... but disguise their disgust by attempting to alter others points of view to their own. This is done by using the second definition of roleplaying instead of the one our games and game designs have used since the start.  Unfortunately, this second definition, "character portrayal" instead of "playing a role" is the one our hobby has been historically misled to believe they are doing.  

The Forge theories are not bad theories.  They are simply inaccurate when it comes to explaining the first 35 years of roleplaying games and why they were designed in the manner they were.   They are only accurate to their own definition of roleplaying, a divergent-design definition. This is almost certainly intentional as the high quality of game design of non-Indie games is pretty blatantly obvious when Forge theories are tossed aside and the actual (first) definition of roleplaying is used.

Make no mistake.  I am agreeing with you. The Forge site and its theories are a hit job meant to alter the entire hobby of roleplaying games. But it is an intelligent one.  One that uses it's knowledge as a form of propaganda.  It is intelligent because its' theory is fully fleshed out and understanding and elucidating of roleplaying, but leaves half of everything about roleplaying by definition, and roleplaying game design under that prior definition, by the wayside.  This is how propaganda works: explain all the positive details from one's own biased position, while displaying the other side with as few details as possible making it appear dubious.  Only enough is conveyed to portray the other side, other ways of game design in our case, as imbecile.  Forge theory does this narrowly defining the term "roleplaying" to the one definition While Wolf and other Theatre gamers use. Not the one used by D&D and most of the rest of the tabletop community.  The theory appears fully inclusive because no shadow of the past it included under rightful terms or definitions (even other game definitions were entirely rewritten).  I believe the theory quite deliberately leaves out the entire second half of roleplaying and roleplaying game design.  I say deliberately, because the Big Model and GNS were clearly meant to attack GDS, a theory they knew well and were attempted to disprove with GNS in order for the "story-tellers" side of the 90's feud, the narrativists, to win.  

Sadly, RPGs in total have lost because of the ascendancy of Forge theory.  Not because theatre roleplaying games aren't fun and are seeing a new form of RPGs come to fruition.   But because both sides of the term RP and both sides of RP game design are fundamentally supportive of our hobby and Forge game designs are demonstrably inaccurate when it comes to achieving the first definition of rolepaying for RPG game design.  (which makes sense when the objective is different)

Good roleplaying games are possible under both design tropes, but all the false arguments about "30 years of bad design" and how we finally have "objectively good game design" is exactly what it appears to be: bullshit lies based on half truths.  Most Forgies are fully versed when it comes to parroting back arguments of the Big Model originally designed to remove traditional, D&D-loving, tabletop-playing RPGers almost a decade ago.  What most do not know is how roleplaying games were so excellently designed before the Forge turned the world on its' head and altered definitions to alter understandings.  Look up roleplaying in the encyclopedia.  Determine why Roleplay Simulation is what our RPG hobby has been doing for the past 30+ years.  And recognize the ingenious accomplishments of traditional, convergent-designed RPGs.  And I think you will be able to walk over most folks who simply repeat arguments they couldn't think up themselves.

My other advice to you is to give up believing a GM Fiat activity can qualify as a "game" by any definition.  You don't have to, of course.  Nor do you need to change the manner in which you play.  But if you wish successfully argue against folks who jabber back Forge-spin, then you're going to need to stop believing a game can happen where any person is allowed to change the rules at any time during play.  This is the charge of CalvinBall against DM Fiat.  And why I think the term Referee has returned as referees do not make up rules, but rather strictly follow and enforce them.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300912When rpg theorists begin their essays by telling us that,

   "My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated."

or,

   "Roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours."

I think it fair to say it's very likely they're just crap GMs.

Saddly, I find there is a lot of truth in those statements, and that is speaking from both sides of the GM screen. In the middle of this there are good times as well - good games, fun games, crazy games - and that's what keeps me coming back, but there is also a lot of "20 minutes of fun packed in four hours" out there, and sometimes it's even worse than that.

I am perfectly happy to concede that I am a crap GM. For every game I've run that has worked well there are plenty more which just haven't. I am also willing to condede that I may be a fussy player. But in these years I've never stumbled into that magical land where the GM are all good and all the games consistently fun.

Quote from: howandwhy99;300926I really like how you started out, but not where you ended up.  As we've been through before, DM fiat isn't a game.

I never said it was, all on its own. It's just part of a game session, a game session which include a bit of roleplaying, a bit of rules, a bit of imaginary combat, some other conflicts, some puzzles, some dilemmas, and so on.

Quote from: howandwhy99My other advice to you is to give up believing a GM Fiat activity can qualify as a "game" by any definition.

Alone, it doesn't. But so what? I never said it did.

Quote from: howandwhy99if you wish successfully argue against folks who jabber back Forge-spin you're going to need to stop believing a game can happen where any person is allowed to change the rules at any time during play.

It's not "any person", it's "the GM, with the consent of the players."

When children play games, they constantly adjust the rules and style of play to make the game "fairer"; which to them means that everyone gets to participate fully, and has a chance of feeling successful. So in football they give a hard tackle to a big kid, and a soft tackle or none to a small kid. In baseball or cricket they toss a fast ball to the good batter, and a slow ball to the poor batter. Or in chess the better player will focus on taking pieces, or play defensively, rather than going straight for checkmate.

Children change the rules of games all the time; they remain "games".

If you sit down and play Monopoly or Trivial Pursuit with your spouse, you'll probably find each "cheats" to help the other. Because it's not purely competitive, it's social.

Even in more formal games like professional football or boxing, we have weight classes and ability-based divisions. They do that because seeing a heavyweight pound on a featherweight isn't very entertaining compared to two heavyweights or two featherweights.

Roleplaying games aren't organised into leagues with thousands of members, and aren't professional, so we can't do that. We're purely social, so instead of official leagues we just adjust gameplay and rules to keep things interesting. It's still a game.

But it's a social game. Not competitive. If it were competitive, then following the rules exactly would matter. But it's not.

But even if the GM never changes the rules, they still have to fill in the rules, since they can't cover everything. For example, in AD&D1e you could buy a helm for your character, separate to other armour; but there were no hit locations, and no rules for what a helm did to your Armor Class by itself. So the GM had to fill in that blank.

That was obvious and foreseeable, it's just sloppy game writing. Most aren't that obvious, but things always turn up in play, things the game designers never thought of. The GM has to fill in the blanks. That's GM fiat.

Other times, rules will contradict each-other, and the GM must resolve the contradiction. That's GM fiat.

Then during play sometimes rules get ignored. In the DMG, Gygax gives the example of rolling for wandering monsters. If wandering monsters are going to wipe out the party before they get anywhere through the adventure, the roll should not be done, he says. How is this decided? GM fiat.

You can say, "if the GM ever decides anything outside the strict letter of the rules, it's no longer a game!" but that means that the vast majority of sessions played in our hobby over the past 35 years or so were not game sessions. This is the problem with semantic arguments over definitions. You end up narrowing and narrowing the definition until it excludes just about everything, and it's no longer useful for any kind of discussion.

It's best to use words as they're commonly understood.

If I want to argue with Forgers, all I need is common sense, and a depth and breadth of gaming experiences. This lets me do things like the last paragraph.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300922Whether their experiences are limited, or their experiences are that every time they play it's awful (the common element in all someone's dysfunctional relationships is themselves), either way if they're unaware of how limited their experiences are, or unaware how crap they are, and so any discussions they have about gaming will come from that self-blindness.

Not really. Like I said the common element may be a clash of expectations. You got a group of people who like radically different things trying to game together. Most times people will find common ground, but sometimes it's impossible. Someone who likes a collaborative style of gaming will find it difficult or nearly impossible to play with a group which is totally disinterested in this kind of gaming.

So, it's not really about being a crap player or crap GM although I'm sure you would find this kind of play "crap" or any kind of dysfunction, although I will concede that the way how some of these designers express their prefered playstyle, is slightly dysfunctional. And I'm sure you will agree people with limited experices talking about gaming shapes the kind of discussion we have around here or anywhere for that matter.

QuoteThat's irrelevant to what I said - I said their incomplete and wrong understanding of gaming shaped "the kind of discussions they have."

The kind of discussions we have are normally centered around their games. Theory seeps in because most times, the experiences of those who have played their games are dismissed and it's more interesting to talk about what stupid thing a designer claims rather than actually engaging with the actual play experience.

QuoteCrap players can just drift from group to group; crap GMs are more likely to end up without game groups at all. Which leads them, as I said, with no refuge but rpg theory, arguments about "canon" and similar wankery.

No, this is your pet theory. IME experience there are plenty of crap GMs who have groups and discuss their experiences online. It's just that not all of them are talking theory.

QuoteNone of which says anything about their favourite games in play. James M's favourite game is some sort of old D&D, Abyssal Maw's some form of D&D4e, Settembrini some form of D&D3.5, Ron Edwards' anything he himself wrote, and so on; all of these are quite different games, but all these guys are loons. They're loons in that they ascribe their poor game play experiences to abstract stuff, rather than just to being or playing with dickheads; and they dismiss other people's experiences are meaningless or say they don't really understand them.

Well I don't really know what this has to do with anything but I'm always up for someone slagging off Sett and AM. All these guys are ideologically driven gamers, so I think there's a little bit more to it than just being loons. Limited experiences is one thing. A disdain for gamers is another. But then again, it could just be the dysfunctional way they express themselves. However, dismissing other people's experience as meaningless or saying you don't really understand or put it another way, is "crap", is something of the norm around these parts.

QuoteThe worst sin of the Forge-derived games has little to do with the games as such, but simply their poor writing. The writing is poor because the design notes, play style advice and rules are all mixed together. In this the game writers are not unique, it's characteristic of all vanity writing, writing we do for fun and ego rather than for money.

The same could be said for every game out there. IME some Forge games are crap whilst others are pretty good. As I said, many like Forge games or Forge like games, but don't really subscribe to their design philosophies. But I get it, you never played any of them, but you just can't help dismiss the experiences of people who have, as meaningless. Whatever. Say what you want about Forge designers, I don't really know what their motives for designing games are only that some of their games are pretty interesting.

QuoteThe poor rpg theory, poor because it's based on incomplete experiences or the person being a or playing with dickheads, this does surprisingly little to influence the game design, but a lot to influence the writing.

Wait now it's the writing ? You were on firmer ground when it came to the game design.

QuoteOf course it varies in degree. But all accept it to some degree.
There's a certain level of GM fiat which almost all players will accept. They'll argue it a bit if it goes against their wishes for their character - "but why can't I be a cyberninja in the ancient Mayan world?" - but on the whole these things are accepted. Like "canon", they're rarely controversial in game groups, only in online discussions.

But these are really not examples of where people argue over GM fiat, are they?  

QuoteIf the GM is obviously ignoring the rules and just deciding everything, then players will usually get upset. That's because it gives a player no basis on which to plan their character's actions; it might work, it might not, it's all up to the GM's whim, the decision they make might go one way this session, another way next session.

This is more like it.

QuoteBut between what almost every player will accept, and pure GM fiat with no rules, there's of course a huge middle ground where most game sessions happen. And most gamers accept that instinctively and without much trouble. There's sometimes a bit of adjustment at the beginning of a new campaign with a new group, but that's usually sorted out within 4 or so sessions - most people compromise, one player may get pissed off and leave, or a truly atrocious GM may have everyone leave. But after that adjustment period, people do accept things.

I don't know about this kyle. I have noticed that when friends game together this is usually not a problem. But when strangers game together it gets a little complicated. Nobody knows what the other likes or cares what the other likes, for that matter. There's a tendency to seek refuge in rules. I'm not saying that this is always the case, but GM fiat has always been one of the more contentious aspects of gaming.  

QuoteThe thing is that many people when they hear "GM fiat" they think of "arbitrary" and from that think "unpredictable" and "inconsistent" and "random".

Yes.

QuoteSo the GM fiat power can be used well - to make the session more fun and fulfilling - or badly. But in practice most GMs use the power alright, and most players accept it. Again, they won't silently accept each and every decision the GM makes - but they'll accept most, and accept the power itself.

I believe I said something similar upthread. It all depends on the way how a GM relates to the preferences and desires of his/her players.

QuoteOf course. But I think that if you game with enough people, you can make some generalisations. We shouldn't expect scientific rigour in these generalisations, but they're still useful anyway. You need a breadth (play with lots of gamers) and depth (lots of time with a few gamers) of experiences to be able to make these generalisations.

In other words, like I said earlier....their experiences are limited ? Fuck, is it so difficult for you to concede a point.

QuoteIf someone's stated experiences are that most gamers they meet are tired, bitter and frustrated, or that a session is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours, then either that person has gamed with few people and they were just unlucky, or else the person is an annoying dork. So either they're incompetent or dorks, and in both cases their game play or design advice won't be very helpful to us. That won't stop them trying to give it to us, of course, because they have no group to keep them busy.

Well hold on. I said that this is not all there is to it. A lot of the times it's a clash of expectations. I'm not only talking about Forge games here. People like different things about gaming, so the above description of twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours could describe a whole range of possible situations. Someone who can't stand dungeon crawls but likes investigative stuff could very feel like it's twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours.....esp if the only kind of game the other players want to play are dungeon crawls. It gets even worse if this player is not gaming with friends but with a group of strangers.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Soylent Green;300927there are good times as well - good games, fun games, crazy games - and that's what keeps me coming back

You have to focus a bit on the good ones, figure out what made them good, and try to bring more of that to the table more often.

Quote from: SoylentI am perfectly happy to concede that I am a crap GM. For every game I've run that has worked well there are plenty more which just haven't.

Then you're probably just an okay GM.

Have you ever known someone who went from one job to another every few months, and each and every time they tell you, "all my workmates are lazy and stupid, the boss is an arsehole." A workplace or two, that's believable, but when it's every place they ever worked, well then it's probably them. Much the same goes for intimate relationships, when someone tells you that women are all bitches or men are all bastards, etc.

Same deal with gaming. If every game group you've ever been in or run was a miserable mess, well it's probably you.

If every one was a brilliant success, that's probably you, too.

If some of them were good, some not, then you're like most of us.

QuoteBut in these years I've never stumbled into that magical land where the GM are all good and all the games consistently fun.

I don't think many of us have. It's like the perfect job or relationship, it doesn't exist. There are better or worse ones, obviously, but mostly it depends on the people involved making an effort to make the thing good.

Really it all comes down to the people involved. They have to get along, be really interested in the game, and so on. Same as any other voluntary social activity. Nothing mysterious about it, really. It's just people.

Quote from: David R;300931Not really. Like I said the common element may be a clash of expectations.

When a person's expectations clash with everyone they meet...

Quote from: David RThe same could be said for every game out there.

It's not specifically Forger games that mix up design notes, gameplay advice and rules in a messy strew. As I said, it's a characteristic of all vanity press writing, it's muddled stuff. It's true of the first editions of many games, for example Aftermath! from 1981 or so, I've found it unreadable.

Quote from: David RBut I get it, you never played any of them, but you just can't help dismiss the experiences of people who have, as meaningless. Whatever.

Except that I have played them (specifically, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard and My Life With Master - I've read Burning Wheel, which is more than the guy who lent it to me with strong praise could manage), and I don't dismiss the experiences of those who've played them.

As I said, the theory seems to affect the games remarkably little; it affects just their writing. Of course this affects the playability of the games - but that's all about their readability, for this reason I've never played Aftermath! which is hardly Forger.

QuoteWait now it's the writing ? You were on firmer ground when it came to the game design.

Except I never mentioned the game design. I'll bullet-point it for clarity.

• if every time you play you and everyone else is miserable, it might be something about gaming, or something about you
• it's probably you
• so you stop gaming
• but you still want to game, what to do?
  
• well, you can argue online about rpg theory or game "canon"
• if those arguments about rpg theory and "canon" encourage you to write an rpg, it'll probably be badly-written

I didn't mention game design as such.

QuoteBut these are really not examples of where people argue over GM fiat, are they?  

No. And that's the point. The argument is not whether GM fiat ought to exist at all - if it didn't, few game sessions would last more than ten minutes - it's just about the best way to do it.

QuoteI don't know about this kyle. I have noticed that when friends game together this is usually not a problem. But when strangers game together it gets a little complicated. Nobody knows what the other likes or cares what the other likes, for that matter. There's a tendency to seek refuge in rules. I'm not saying that this is always the case, but GM fiat has always been one of the more contentious aspects of gaming.  

That's a good insight, I think - that when players don't know each-other well, they look to the rules.

But I take that as an argument in favour of GM fiat, not against it. Because by some well-exercisedfiat in place of or in addition to rules, while it may make some of the players arc up, it'll establish trust in the group. "Look, the GM isn't crazy or stupid or out to get us, we can trust them."

Quotethe above description of twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours could describe a whole range of possible situations. Someone who can't stand dungeon crawls but likes investigative stuff could very feel like it's twnety minutes of fun packed into four hours.....esp if the only kind of game the other players want to play are dungeon crawls.

Sure. It can be taken as "sometimes game sessions aren't much fun." But this is the original:

"RPGs in their current format are still "20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours". [...] Many RPG sessions consist of a very limited amount of "roleplaying game", surrounded by a lot of argument, community dialog, eating, and other distractions."

Dancey wasn't talking about a clash of playstyle preferences or expectations. He was saying that this was most sessions we have. Like most rpg theorists, he's unaware of how people actually play.

"There are so many other areas that need work though. Psychological profiling so that the DM knows what kind of players are in the group, and how to craft a session to maximize the fun for that mix of players would be fantastic."

Most GMs already do this, adjusting their campaign's design and the flow and focus of a game session based on players' personalities and their feedback, both formal and informal. "Oh look, everyone is bored, I should put something different in."

They're just clueless.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300928I never said it was, all on its own. It's just part of a game session, a game session which include a bit of roleplaying, a bit of rules, a bit of imaginary combat, some other conflicts, some puzzles, some dilemmas, and so on.

This seems to be the main thrust of your response. To the "game" issue anyways.  I guess I should have read more clearly.  DM fiat cannot be part of a game in the same way an umpire cannot change the rules of baseball during a game.   Umpires enforce the rules and make calls based on physical actions.  In RPGs, referees do the same, but the actions are described when not performed.  

QuoteWhen children play games, they constantly adjust the rules and style of play to make the game "fairer"; which to them means that everyone gets to participate fully, and has a chance of feeling successful. So in football they give a hard tackle to a big kid, and a soft tackle or none to a small kid. In baseball or cricket they toss a fast ball to the good batter, and a slow ball to the poor batter. Or in chess the better player will focus on taking pieces, or play defensively, rather than going straight for checkmate.

Children change the rules of games all the time; they remain "games"

I'd actually like to agree with you and you make a compelling argument.  It's just a losing argument.  Games are defined as following rulesets.  Not simply engaging in any fun activity.  Games have formal rules. If they did not, then every activity in life counts as a game.  That way lies madness.  Then we're equivalent to the Forgies in their delusional "everything in life is story" B.S.  

Not following formal rules means not playing the game.  Otherwise there would be no difference between playing and not playing.

The examples you give are each of players altering strategies, not rules.  

QuoteIf you sit down and play Monopoly or Trivial Pursuit with your spouse, you'll probably find each "cheats" to help the other. Because it's not purely competitive, it's social.

Again, strategies, not rules.  If the rules are changed, those are House Rules.  That's game design. Giving folks handicaps like in bowling or golf isn't cheating.  It's a rule for players of varying ability to enjoyably compete.

QuoteEven in more formal games like professional football or boxing, we have weight classes and ability-based divisions. They do that because seeing a heavyweight pound on a featherweight isn't very entertaining compared to two heavyweights or two featherweights.

Roleplaying games aren't organised into leagues with thousands of members, and aren't professional, so we can't do that. We're purely social, so instead of official leagues we just adjust gameplay and rules to keep things interesting. It's still a game.

Actually the RPGA is a league.  And historically convention tournament games required a self avowed player status: beginner, intermediate, and expert.  Being an expert playing with a beginner isn't nearly as enjoyable.

EDIT: Not as enjoyable as cooperating with others of one's own skill level to succeed at the game.

QuoteBut it's a social game. Not competitive. If it were competitive, then following the rules exactly would matter. But it's not.

Roleplaying is competitive, that's why we have tournaments.  They are team competitions against a preset situation.  Roleplaying is all about displays of skill and ingenuity.

QuoteBut even if the GM never changes the rules, they still have to fill in the rules, since they can't cover everything. For example, in AD&D1e you could buy a helm for your character, separate to other armour; but there were no hit locations, and no rules for what a helm did to your Armor Class by itself. So the GM had to fill in that blank.

This is the GM cheating.  Or making a house rule prior to play.  

QuoteThat was obvious and foreseeable, it's just sloppy game writing. Most aren't that obvious, but things always turn up in play, things the game designers never thought of. The GM has to fill in the blanks. That's GM fiat.

That's the GM cheating.  And bad play.  Players can no longer win except to guess the GM's decision making.  

No rule for helms is not sloppy game writing [design].  By the rules as written, helms simply have no bearing on the roles being played.

QuoteOther times, rules will contradict each-other, and the GM must resolve the contradiction. That's GM fiat.

Rules contradicting each other is bad game design.

QuoteThen during play sometimes rules get ignored. In the DMG, Gygax gives the example of rolling for wandering monsters. If wandering monsters are going to wipe out the party before they get anywhere through the adventure, the roll should not be done, he says. How is this decided? GM fiat.

This is Mr. Gygax giving horribly bad advice.  

QuoteYou can say, "if the GM ever decides anything outside the strict letter of the rules, it's no longer a game!" but that means that the vast majority of sessions played in our hobby over the past 35 years or so were not game sessions. This is the problem with semantic arguments over definitions. You end up narrowing and narrowing the definition until it excludes just about everything, and it's no longer useful for any kind of discussion.

It's 35 years worth of poorly refereed games.  But plenty have been played well and refereed fairly.  Claiming the majority of gamers play poorly isn't a good counterargument.  These games were games with repeated failures on the part of the GMs, often through ignorance.  Those who purposefully cheated with the players desiring them to cheat were not playing games.  

This isn't about narrowing the definition of "game" to exclude how any person or person likes to play RPGs.  It simply is the definition every game of every type uses.  And RPGs have glossed over this to the hobby's detriment.  

QuoteIt's best to use words as they're commonly understood.

I agree with the sentence, but not your understanding of it.  Commonly understood, not following the rules of a game is not playing a game.  Or it cheating.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300933When a person's expectations clash with everyone they meet...

Considering the problem gamers have with getting a group together and the limited number of people interested in this hobby.....you find this difficult to understand ?

QuoteIt's not specifically Forger games that mix up design notes, gameplay advice and rules in a messy strew. As I said, it's a characteristic of all vanity press writing, it's muddled stuff. It's true of the first editions of many games, for example Aftermath! from 1981 or so, I've found it unreadable.

My mistake. I took your "the sin of Forge derived games...." statement to mean.... a statement about Forge derived games.....

QuoteExcept that I have played them (specifically, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard and My Life With Master - I've read Burning Wheel, which is more than the guy who lent it to me with strong praise could manage), and I don't dismiss the experiences of those who've played them.

Fair enough, kyle. You have never talked about your experinces with those games, so I assumed you didn't have any. My bad. Your general hostility towards Forge games and gamers is well documented though, hence I always get the feeling you're dismissing a playstyle you have no interest in.

QuoteAs I said, the theory seems to affect the games remarkably little; it affects just their writing. Of course this affects the playability of the games - but that's all about their readability, for this reason I've never played Aftermath! which is hardly Forger.

Yes, it's hardly Forger.  

QuoteExcept I never mentioned the game design. I'll bullet-point it for clarity.

• if every time you play you and everyone else is miserable, it might be something about gaming, or something about you
• it's probably you
• so you stop gaming
• but you still want to game, what to do?
  
• well, you can argue online about rpg theory or game "canon"
• if those arguments about rpg theory and "canon" encourage you to write an rpg, it'll probably be badly-written

I didn't mention game design as such.

C'mon. You were talking about theory. Are we going to do the semantic dance, now? And as for your bullet points....well, it's your pet theory but I'll play. So in other words if you have crappy experiences as a gamer, the games you design (if you choose to) would be badly written ? *snort* Yeah that makes sense, kyle.

QuoteNo. And that's the point. The argument is not whether GM fiat ought to exist at all - if it didn't, few game sessions would last more than ten minutes - it's just about the best way to do it.

Agreed, so why bring up those examples ? I mean all I said was that the acceptability of fiat varies from group to group not that there shouldn't be any.  

QuoteBut I take that as an argument in favour of GM fiat, not against it. Because by some well-exercisedfiat in place of or in addition to rules, while it may make some of the players arc up, it'll establish trust in the group. "Look, the GM isn't crazy or stupid or out to get us, we can trust them."

Again, I wasn't arguing aginst GM fiat. Each group handles this in a different way.

QuoteSure. It can be taken as "sometimes game sessions aren't much fun." But this is the original:

"RPGs in their current format are still "20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours". [...] Many RPG sessions consist of a very limited amount of "roleplaying game", surrounded by a lot of argument, community dialog, eating, and other distractions."

Dancey wasn't talking about a clash of playstyle preferences or expectations. He was saying that this was most sessions we have. Like most rpg theorists, he's unaware of how people actually play.

"There are so many other areas that need work though. Psychological profiling so that the DM knows what kind of players are in the group, and how to craft a session to maximize the fun for that mix of players would be fantastic."

Sure. And you would be right to question and mock the context of Dancey's statement. But then again the conversation has evolved. People may not subscribe to original intent of Dancey's statement but instead have added their own interpretations (experiences) to it.

Regards,
David R

* starts thread on fire *

Quote from: howandwhy99;300926My other advice to you is to give up believing a GM Fiat activity can qualify as a "game" by any definition. . . . But if you wish successfully argue against folks who jabber back Forge-spin, then you're going to need to stop believing a game can happen where any person is allowed to change the rules at any time during play.  This is the charge of CalvinBall against DM Fiat.  And why I think the term Referee has returned as referees do not make up rules, but rather strictly follow and enforce them.

Fiat is such a loaded term. Which is why I prefer discretion.

As noted already, the referee is not just "any person." S/he's the person designated by the rules to adjudicate the rules, to fill in any gaps that arise in play, and in many systems is given explicit responsibility to change the rules as desired for better play. "Better play" will always be solely determined by the people around the table, which also means that sometimes a player will find her- or himself at the wrong table due to differing ideas of what is "better."

Quote from: David R;300889Trust is about how the GM relates to the (most times) diverse preceptions and preferences of his/her players.

How does that work in actual play, however? How does the GM know that I perceive bears to be fast and prefer that the game reflect my perceptions? By the time that comes to the fore, isn't it too late?

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;300893Only option (1) removes the possibility of someone's jackassery slowing down or ruining the game. Unfortunately, it's also impossible without severely limiting the breadth of the game.

Sure, but that doesn't mean folks still don't prefer option one.

Seanchai