Quote from: JimBobOzThey're already using such words. I'm just upping the stakes. It's a little joke, you see.

And "they" in this case means me, Tony, right?  Just trying to keep this in context.

Quote from: MarcoI don't consider "that's against the rules" in the same category as "that's not fun" or "that's not properly playing your character." There's an objective/subjective gradient there in most cases that is very different.

That's good to know. It seemed like you were arguing against shutting people down in general. So I take it we agree that "that's against the rules" is a good reason to shut somebody down at your table?

QuoteIs "keep the game fun" the same thing as "do whatever you want"?

Let's see... "keep the game fun" leads to "do whatever is fun". Because doing something that isn't fun, means that the game right now is not fun. Something we're trying to avoid.

Fun is, as you said, subjective. Nobody can tell me what I consider fun. I'm the only judge of that. So only I choose what I have to do to make the game more fun. I will do what I want to make the game fun.

That's how "keep the game fun" becomes "do whatever you want".

QuoteI also think that any one-liner piece of advice is probably questionable as a generality. This, here, is the strawman you're looking for, I think.

I say, that's the biggest dodge to come from place that isn't Detroit.

QuoteI believed that providing versimilitude was part of the job of the GM. It wasn't a carefully considered opinion nor clearly thought out. That's kind of the point.

Fine. But are you seriously saying that you did all this, because some book told you to? And not because you thought it would lead to a better (i.e. more fun) game, even if you did not know how or why?

QuoteThe right piece of advice to the right person can be valuable. It won't be valuable to everyone all the time--but deciding it's a strawman because it's not valueable to you is kind of bizarre.

Whether a piece of GM advice is good or bad, doesn't depend on who's hearing/reading it. It depends on the game you're supposed to use it with.

Does the GM advice from "Ass-Whupper: The Hollering" help make the game run smoother? If so, it is good GM advice. If it doesn't, it's a waste of pages. It doesn't matter one whit, if it also helps your D&D game, Polaris game or Tunnels & Trolls game. Or if it makes you a better person and makes you want to donate blood - which you should do anyway.

GM advice is game specific. It is not GM specific.

Yet another reason why "keep the game fun" or "do whatever is fun" is utterly useless advice. Might as well tell a cook to make your dinner "taste good".

QuoteMaybe you're saying that GM advice at all is a bad thing and books should just stick to rules?

No. But I will start saying: stop putting words in my mouth. I've had better cooks and prettier women than you put things into my mouth.

GM advice is one of most important things about a game. It shows and explains to the GM how to do his job - in this game. It explains how to implement rules, how to manage all kinds of situations that can crop up in the game and how to keep the game on track.

Some grognards believe that GMs are born with this knowledge or pick it up through everyday social interaction or need lots of practice. But that is bullshit. You have to learn to GM a game. Good GM advice will teach you, bad GM advice will give you a bunch of platitudes, pseudo-intellectual (or in this case anti-intellectual) drivel.

Quote from: WhitterThat's good to know. It seemed like you were arguing against shutting people down in general. So I take it we agree that "that's against the rules" is a good reason to shut somebody down at your table?

I'm fine with following the rules.

QuoteLet's see... "keep the game fun" leads to "do whatever is fun". Because doing something that isn't fun, means that the game right now is not fun. Something we're trying to avoid.

Bizarre. Doing things that are "fun" is a subset of all possible things that has all kinds of constraints on it (such as setting, mechanics, system, etc.). An example is a decision about how much of a lengthy jail-term to play out. Some groups might wish to play out lots of it. Some groups might wish to play out very few parts of it. Some groups might wish to do *none* of it ("Five years later ...").

This example (on which the rules for a traditional game may reasonably be silent) is why your argument is bad. If the GM holds an incorrect idea about what their mandate is a less-fun game may result (i.e. the players are spending a great deal of energy trying to escape on a minute-by-minute basis so the game is going very, very slow). If someone says "Hey, it'd be more fun to just play out a couple of scenes from this or do like a montage ..." that could greatly improve the game.

If the game isn't specifically about being in prison (or has prision as a very likely component of the game) then I think it's unlikely that the GM advice will explicitly cover that (it might--but I would consider that a poor use of paper). However some good guidelines ('platitudes' in your lexicon, I guess) can come in handy for a first-time GM.

Things such as: "If the players or you aren't finding the game fun, discuss what might be done to get it back on track." Or "Many groups find fast-paced games more fun than slow ones. The GM can keep the pacing faster by skipping over game-time when very little fun-stuff is happening to get to the fun-stuff."

Note that the advice doesn't tell you what that fun-stuff is--but it's still a useful description since the group will usually know (or at least can pause play and have a meaningful discussion about what fun-stuff is).

QuoteFine. But are you seriously saying that you did all this, because some book told you to? And not because you thought it would lead to a better (i.e. more fun) game, even if you did not know how or why?

I'm not aware of a specific piece of advice in a specific book that gave me that impression. However, "running the rest of the world" seemed to lean towards the GM enforcing some kind of 'realism.' As I said, it wasn't real well thought out: hence the advice is helpful.

QuoteWhether a piece of GM advice is good or bad, doesn't depend on who's hearing/reading it. It depends on the game you're supposed to use it with.

I don't buy this. Being a GM (or player) is basically a creative/artistic endeavor. Advice from different schools of thought about how to achieve things is applicable to the specific things the person is trying to accomplish.

Many games are more versitile than the AW:TH. What advice do you give to the GURPS GM? Advice to a D&D group that just does dungeons may be different to a D&D group that does a lot of in-town political adventures (amount of work to spend on NPCs, for example).

See, your assertion is only argueably true for very narrow games. Broader games mean groups can benefit from a broader spectrum of advice.

QuoteNo. But I will start saying: stop putting words in my mouth. I've had better cooks and prettier women than you put things into my mouth.

GM advice is one of most important things about a game. It shows and explains to the GM how to do his job - in this game. It explains how to implement rules, how to manage all kinds of situations that can crop up in the game and how to keep the game on track.

Some grognards believe that GMs are born with this knowledge or pick it up through everyday social interaction or need lots of practice. But that is bullshit. You have to learn to GM a game. Good GM advice will teach you, bad GM advice will give you a bunch of platitudes, pseudo-intellectual (or in this case anti-intellectual) drivel.

Is this really a sore point for you?

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoBizarre. Doing things that are "fun" is a subset of all possible things that has all kinds of constraints on it (such as setting, mechanics, system, etc.). An example is a decision about how much of a lengthy jail-term to play out. Some groups might wish to play out lots of it. Some groups might wish to play out very few parts of it. Some groups might wish to do *none* of it ("Five years later ...").

So what you're saying is... fun is a useless term unless defined for each group. Thought so.

QuoteThis example (on which the rules for a traditional game may reasonably be silent) is why your argument is bad. If the GM holds an incorrect idea about what their mandate is a less-fun game may result (i.e. the players are spending a great deal of energy trying to escape on a minute-by-minute basis so the game is going very, very slow). If someone says "Hey, it'd be more fun to just play out a couple of scenes from this or do like a montage ..." that could greatly improve the game.

Then the GM should peruse the purchased instruction manual as to determine the actual parameters of his mandate and how they relate to the various conditions the endeavour in question will undoubtedly develop in the course of its undertaking.

Which is to say he should read the damn rulebook. No RPG is about how much time to spend on doing something. Or about re-negotiating the "GM's mandate".

All RPGs are about player characters (sometimes only players) doing cool shit that matters. It says so in one way or another on every RPG out there. From D&D to Dogs in the Vineyard and from Traveller to Polaris.

The moment you lose sight of that, your game is going down the drain. This is not advice. This is blindingly obvious to anybody who can read an RPG rulebook.

QuoteThings such as: "If the players or you aren't finding the game fun, discuss what might be done to get it back on track." Or "Many groups find fast-paced games more fun than slow ones. The GM can keep the pacing faster by skipping over game-time when very little fun-stuff is happening to get to the fun-stuff."

Note that the advice doesn't tell you what that fun-stuff is--but it's still a useful description since the group will usually know (or at least can pause play and have a meaningful discussion about what fun-stuff is).

No. That's my point, which you seem to ignore. I'm saying that you can't assume that a gaming group (especially an unexperienced one) knows what the game has to be like, for them to have fun with it.

That's why "Keep your game fun" is useless. As is "spend more time doing things that are fun, than doing things that aren't fun". It's a platitude. A banal statement that somebody tries to pass off as insight. Don't tell me I should get to the good stuff now, tell me how to do it with the game.

QuoteI'm not aware of a specific piece of advice in a specific book that gave me that impression. However, "running the rest of the world" seemed to lean towards the GM enforcing some kind of 'realism.' As I said, it wasn't real well thought out: hence the advice is helpful.

Now that is bizarre. You didn't play games to have fun? You had to be told what playing games is for?

Even the poor schmucks I've met, who strive for deep and meaningful storytelling in their Shadowrun games, only do that because they believe that it will be more fun that way.

QuoteI don't buy this. Being a GM (or player) is basically a creative/artistic endeavor.

Oh, spare me. It's a bloody game. It's not art. It's not creativity unleashed. It's a game. It has rules for players. It has rules for the GM. Playing the game means following the rules. The fact that you have to imagine things instead of pushing cardboard chits on a square board doesn't make it an artistic/creative endeavour. No more than reading a book is an artistic/creative endeavour.

QuoteAdvice to a D&D group that just does dungeons may be different to a D&D group that does a lot of in-town political adventures (amount of work to spend on NPCs, for example).

It shouldn't be. The game doesn't change fundamentally, just because you're dealing with backstabbing nobles instead of backstabbing goblins. You just need to dress it up differently.

But your job as the GM remains the same: give the players something to do, give them decisions that matter and make the setting seem plausible, while doing so.

QuoteSee, your assertion is only argueably true for very narrow games. Broader games mean groups can benefit from a broader spectrum of advice.

No. You're just under the illusion that GM advice should be less about how to GM a game, and more about "the right length of played out jail time", "reminding people to have fun", elaborate NPC motivations or some other drivel.

Well, Whitter--I admit I don't know exactly what to make of your post. Your contention that backstabbing goblins in a dungeon is the same as "backstabbing nobles" in a political or town-based game is the same seems to be the root of the problem. If you think it's all the same since you're using D20 then you've got a problem that I can't help you with.

Same with the putting words in-mouth thing: I'm not saying fun is 'useless.' I'm saying it's a valid context for a conversation--something that, despite yourself, you admit.

It seems you have some agenda that is interferring with your ability to look at games as a broad creative exercise. I'm not claiming it's high-art or "soulful expression of the inner emo" or anything. I'm saying that being a GM, in a traditional game, means putting out some creative effort. And that that the goals of that effort will vary from person to person and group to group.

That's also true for being a player. You want to minimize that and constrict the scope of the game so that there's not much creativity involved.

I'm going to play Internet-mind-reader* and guess you've had many less-than-stellar experiences with traditional games. If that's true, your perspective on the creative effort involved in playing the game is the reason why.

-Marco
*meaning I have no idea if this is true or not--but judging from what you say, I'm going to make a guess.

Quote from: MarcoWell, Whitter--I admit I don't know exactly what to make of your post. Your contention that backstabbing goblins in a dungeon is the same as "backstabbing nobles" in a political or town-based game is the same seems to be the root of the problem. If you think it's all the same since you're using D20 then you've got a problem that I can't help you with.

I'm doing just fine. My point is that as far as the GM's job is concerned, the type of situation the players have to deal with (backstabbing nobles, greedy goblins, etc.) is secondary to creating gaming content for the players. That is, how does he set things up in such a way that the players have a lot of stuff to do and deal with. This is the GM's most important job.

This is what basic GM advice needs to cover. What do I need to do, to charge the game with as much stuff for the players to do as possible? Dressing it up in a way that appeals to players is nice, too. But all the complex motivations, engrossing descriptions and exciting plot twist aren't worth much, if you can't play it.

QuoteSame with the putting words in-mouth thing: I'm not saying fun is 'useless.' I'm saying it's a valid context for a conversation--something that, despite yourself, you admit.

I doubt I admitted that, because I don't know what the hell you're blathering about.

QuoteIt seems you have some agenda that is interferring with your ability to look at games as a broad creative exercise. I'm not claiming it's high-art or "soulful expression of the inner emo" or anything. I'm saying that being a GM, in a traditional game, means putting out some creative effort. And that that the goals of that effort will vary from person to person and group to group.

That's also true for being a player. You want to minimize that and constrict the scope of the game so that there's not much creativity involved.

No, I'm not. Stop embarrassing yourself by incompetently trying to twist my words around. Being creative is not the point of a roleplaying game. It's what you need to do to play the games, but not the point of it.

Just as running is not the point of football. Pushing miniatures around is not the point of chess. And chewing is not the point of eating. That's not to say, that people don't in fact enjoy RPGs because they can be creative in them. It's part of the appeal, no doubt. But it's not what they are designed to do.

Quote from: WhitterNo, I'm not. Stop embarrassing yourself by incompetently trying to twist my words around. Being creative is not the point of a roleplaying game. It's what you need to do to play the games, but not the point of it.

Your words are yours--if you don't like what they're saying it's your issue, not mine. I think the question of what the "point of an RPG is," is where you're tying yourself in knots.

Doing something with a game is, in essence, a creative act. If I'm running a WHFRP game that deals with a bunch of high-octane life-and-death decisions in underground caverns inhabited by chaos nightmares, that's one expression and I'll use different techniques and get a different result than if I'm using the same game-system to run a slower-paced intrigue and back-stabbing game with lots of dark secrets and uncertain loyalties.

At the high level, yeah: it's all people talking to each other and rolling dice--but when you actually look at what's going on you'll see that the 'point*' of each game is, in fact, very very different.

I can understand wanting a game that does it all for you, the way a module does. When the game gives you the setting, the situation (in broad strokes), and very constrained characters and their general goals, then the GM doesn't have that much to do and the GM advice can be very specific to that situation.

However, thankfully, not all games are like that (I see merit in both ways, actually). In the more common traditional case where situation is up to the GM and character goals can vary widely, advice can clearly be differently useful to different groups.

The group doing the everyone on a team, high-tempo dungeon-siege game very different in goals, flavor, action, pacing, PC-death-rate, and almost any other axis imaginable, than the one doing the back-stabbing court-intrigue game. Having a blind spot there isn't going to help you understand that--but it is nonetheless true.

-Marco
* You may know the one-true-point of RPG-play. Maybe, I don't know, you think it's "to have fun" or something like that. But I doubt you and I will agree on this fundamental fact. And one-true-wayism is pretty much a red-flag that you've got your blinders on.

Quote from: MarcoDoing something with a game is, in essence, a creative act.

Semantics: the crutch of the pseudo-intellectual. You might as well define running to the bus as a creative act, with your body as the medium of choice. You're just abstracting things to the point of irrelevance.

QuoteIf I'm running a WHFRP game that deals with a bunch of high-octane life-and-death decisions in underground caverns inhabited by chaos nightmares, that's one expression and I'll use different techniques and get a different result than if I'm using the same game-system to run a slower-paced intrigue and back-stabbing game with lots of dark secrets and uncertain loyalties.

So the debate boils down to what scope GM advice should have?

You're arguing for narrow advice: "To get a slower-paced intrigue and back-stabbing game, the GM should do this, this and this." Which is only ever useful for experienced GMs who want to tailor the game to a very specific kind of experience.

I'm arguing for basic advice, or rather against stupid basic advice such as "Do whatever is fun." My point being, that basic advice is necessary to get the game started and going. The GM needs to know how to use the rules, settings, etc. to their fullest in order to produce a gameable scenario/situation/etc. Everything else is just tweaking the basics.

QuoteAt the high level, yeah: it's all people talking to each other and rolling dice--but when you actually look at what's going on you'll see that the 'point*' of each game is, in fact, very very different.

Your argument is false because if you're using the same rules-set to run things with, it must by definition be the same game. You are just filling it out differently. It doesn't matter if you play rat catchers, witch hunters or Skaven. It's still Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing. As long as you put the rules at the centre of the game (which I assume you do, since you agreed that following the rules is a valid reason to shut somebody down), the game does not change fundamentally, from action-laden dungeon crawl to character-heavy intrigue.

It only feels this way to you, because you don't actually want to play a roleplaying game. You want to undertake a creative endeavour using the game and setting as a starting point. Which is all fine and good. But you really have no business arguing about GM advice for actual roleplayers.

QuoteI can understand wanting a game that does it all for you, the way a module does. When the game gives you the setting, the situation (in broad strokes), and very constrained characters and their general goals, then the GM doesn't have that much to do and the GM advice can be very specific to that situation.

By understand, you obviously mean "want and desire" because you're the one arguing that advice is situation-dependent, narrow-focussed and its value dependent on the group you expose it to.

Although I do appreciate you trying to prove me right. I just didn't expect it. Good advice is game-specific and tells the GM how to produce situations that the players can interact with. It tells the GM what he needs to do so that the players can sink their teeth into the game and play the hell out of it.

QuoteYou may know the one-true-point of RPG-play. Maybe, I don't know, you think it's "to have fun" or something like that. But I doubt you and I will agree on this fundamental fact. And one-true-wayism is pretty much a red-flag that you've got your blinders on.

Just because you subjected your poor players to "the creative/artistic endeavour of realism at the gaming table" and I didn't, doesn't make me a "one-true-way" idiot. Some people can simply read a rulebook and understand that a roleplaying game is there to be played. I'm sorry it took so long for people to explain it to you.

:forge:

This has to be the most fucking useless thread ever created since the internet spawned online forums.

Is 'useless' a useful term?  How about 'fucking useless?'

Quote from: James J SkachIs 'useless' a useful term?  How about 'fucking useless?'

~yup, because it completely describes this thread. "fucking" is just a cool word and makes me sound more like Pundit.:pundit:


the tilde is meant to represent sarcasm.

:hurrr:

yeah, I guess my deadpan delivery didn't translate through my fingertips - this time.

Quote from: WhitterYour argument is false because if you're using the same rules-set to run things with, it must by definition be the same game. You are just filling it out differently. It doesn't matter if you play rat catchers, witch hunters or Skaven. It's still Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing. As long as you put the rules at the centre of the game (which I assume you do, since you agreed that following the rules is a valid reason to shut somebody down), the game does not change fundamentally, from action-laden dungeon crawl to character-heavy intrigue.

It only feels this way to you, because you don't actually want to play a roleplaying game. You want to undertake a creative endeavour using the game and setting as a starting point. Which is all fine and good. But you really have no business arguing about GM advice for actual roleplayers.

Alas, no--just because you are using the same rule-set does not mean everyone plays fundamentally the same game*. People have been doing different things with rule-sets since the early days.

That's one of the huge strengths of traditional systems--that you can (and many do) do fundamentally different things with them.

I'm not sure there's any further to go here other than agreeing to disagree.

-Marco
Edited to add: It's still the same system. It's a fundamentally different experience (point? goal? model? whatever).

Quote from: Mcrow:forge:

This has to be the most fucking useless thread ever created since the internet spawned online forums.

Rest easy, the lube has to run out soon.