Quote from: Seanchai;300951How 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?

IME communication is vital when it comes to individual perceptions about a game. You're right though that it would probably be too late when it comes to your specific  bear example. But trust and how the GM relates to the perception of her/his players (when it comes to fiat) is something done over time. It a series of decisions and discussions.

So, just because you think the GM is wrong in your bear situation, doesn't mean you will think he/she wrong when it comes to something else. IMO trust does not mean you think the GM will make the "right" - the decision that goes your way - all the time but rather that the lines of communication are always open and that your input as a player could very well effect the way how the GM runs a game. Trust is based on past experience. This is how it works in actual play, IMO.

Regards,
David R

Hopefully you can trust your pals are doing what they believe will make the game more fun... but sometimes people have different ideas about the specifics of what makes something fun.  That's when having a shared understanding of the game you're all sitting down to play (aka "the rules") comes in handy. Having a more "open" DMing style (dice in the open, talk about the rules) can help a lot in this regard as well.

All DMing will invariably require some rulings. RPGs being complex and time being limited, all DMs will forget rules from time to time, or not bother looking up a complex system (Grappling) to keep things running smoothly and efficiently.  I don't think DMs should knowingly ignore rules as a way to tell their own story though (eg. don't let the players kill the star NPC etc).

Quote from: The Worid;301001You need rules to tell you whether or not someone betrays you?

No, I don't. Either I miscommunicated, or more likely, you didn't read carefully. In the post you quoted, I was working from the premise that someone wanted to have rules to obviate "GM Fiat".

QuoteSecondly, those categories are a thinly veiled version "Things I Like/Things I Don't Like", based on phrasing.

Tell me which ones I like and which ones I don't. Then we'll see if you got it right.

QuoteMoreover, I hardly see why limiting rules to things that actually need rules ("concrete stuff") somehow narrows what the system can be used to play.

I did not say that. I said that limiting the play of the game to things that are handled by the rules restricts play of the game.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;301033No, I don't. Either I miscommunicated, or more likely, you didn't read carefully. In the post you quoted, I was working from the premise that someone wanted to have rules to obviate "GM Fiat".

The former. You said: "No matter how much detail you include regarding facts... the "detailed" design approach still leaves out the "big picture" questions that frame a given situation--like "does the dude in the Cadillac intend to betray us?" and "if he does, do we find out before it happens?"". You went on to describe two categories of rule systems. If you wanted to say that the "big picture" aspects of the game were not subject to the rules, you should have been more clear.

D&D 4E sure have handsome books.

Quote from: The Worid;301038The former. You said: "No matter how much detail you include regarding facts...

All in the context of a dialog with Seanchai, read back a bit and you can catch up.

Besides, even if you just read the post in isolation, I'm just saying that the rules don't address those issues. By acknowledging that, am I saying I need the rules to address those issues? No, I'm not.

Quote from: Seanchai;300879So all we have to do is find a "competent GM" every time we play. That's a tall order.

Only once, really. Unless you feel you need to play in a bunch of different groups, or play more often than your GM wants to.

Of course, you could take up the responsibility of GMing yourself.

But if this is really so - if lots of players really can't find someone competent and trustworthy to GM their games - then the roleplaying game hobby is pretty much on its deathbed. Because the airtight rules system model (especially when married to a battle-map and miniatures) is pretty much a boardgame with a bit of narrative thrown in.

Quote from: Haffrung;301096then the roleplaying game hobby is pretty much on its deathbed

Hobby or Industry?

"The" Hobby or "YOUR" Hobby?

If playing the games is your hobby, and the games you play requires GMs, and if you can't find a competent GM who you trust, then yes, I mean your hobby is on its deathbed.

If posting game material you'll never use and speculating about gaming on forums is your hobby, it can survive for a long time without GMs GMing real games.

I've just noticed a lot of discussions seem to wander all over the place in regards to Hobby / Industry.  They're really not the same thing - or at least they don't have to be.

EDIT:  Hahaha fuck.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;301190Dungeons and Dragons 4e - In previous editions the Cleric was way too powerful so in the interest of game balance they've allowed everyone to do his job leaving him time to be like all the other classes.

Erm, wrong thread, dude.

Quote from: One Horse Town;301194Erm, wrong thread, dude.

Gah fuck.  Opening multiple windows for the loss.  :S

Quote from: Idinsinuation;301197Gah fuck.  Opening multiple windows for the loss.  :S

Botched your multitasking check, didn't you?

Quote from: Benoist;301200Botched your multitasking check, didn't you?

Hooray for posting at work! haha