Quote from: TomatoMalone;564438Maybe it wouldn't have a stigma if the players you're describing took a shower daily and stopped creeping over every boob window or bare midriff on in the building.

Anyway, I'm not sure why people are bemoaning the death of 'GM Fiat'. Considering that GM adjudication is necessary for any RPG to work, and the rules can never cover everything the players might possibly come up with, 'fiat' is basically the only core mechanic shared by every RPG.

In my 4E game the other day, one of my players wanted to teleport a long distance in a hurry, so I came up with an impromptu ritual at the cost of his only Encounter teleport spell. (initially I'd stipulated the cost as both, but then used the supposedly dead 'GM fiat' to say it just cost the encounter power when he rolled a 30.

4E, or WHFRP, or any game with 'RPG' in the description can never kill off GM judgement. Otherwise it would become a board game or wargame.

This. This is very key. You CAN'T make a ttrpg without some kind of GM fiat. Its impossible to do because running the game at all requires GM input. What you can't do is design a game based on the expectation that people will not use your rules.

@Bill. To be honest I just see that as being pushed around. The lack of consideration of your time is appalling to me. But hey, if it works for you and your group, carry merrily on.

@Ladybird. I understand what you're trying to talk about rpgs in an applied theory sense, and essentially agree. What I feel ExploderWizard is talking about, and he'll clarify if necessary, is 3e/4e in practice in his experience ending up being like an abused computer server.

Now the big difference was EW saw it as a neglected/overlooked server where you have to build as optimal an encounter program to be "challenging" -- that will be thrashed to shreds -- whereas Imp saw it as an overloaded server that has to run far too many encounter programs running to be "challenging" -- and it too will be thrashed to shreds. I'll say it's an interesting hypothesis, and one I wouldn't mind exploring. Granted it's based in anecdotal evidence and it's trying to make sense of a social phenomena therefore at some point theories and models will fail. But hey, who cares? None of us are getting paid, why not speculate away? Screw the empirical evidence, let's talk about this!


Personally, in my experience, I've noticed a severe shift towards players chewing the holy hell out of the scenery, particularly in 3.5/4e/PF of the D&D iterations. And the most common permitting factor I've noted has been players obligingly pointing to their character sheet. It's as if they're more interested in triggering their combo than actually being a part of the rpg world setting. As this is a style I do not enjoy or want to encourage in games I run I am interested in what aspects of the almighty character sheet and optimization fosters this attitude.

Given that EW and Imp feel there's a connecting level of GM being reduced to mechanical server, perhaps this is an area to explore this idea. Perhaps the lack of GM adjudication gives less weight to the setting? GM being relegated to mere mechanical function somehow neuters NPC agency, and thus renders a background impotent? Could this explain why then lore and scenery become dismissible and thus merely backdrops to one's awesome killer combos?

It's an interesting line of thinking for me to pursue at least.

edit: Before people get stupid here, we are discussing things in a spectrum. So let's assume we're not talking about GM adjudication being completely absent or completely dominant. We are adults here and can have nuanced conversations without being tiresomely explicit, yes?

Quote from: Bill;564363Ben and CRK;

Good advice. Its more stubborness I think than any real desire on their part to be difficult. One guy actually does sit out campaigns that use certain game systems. Another guy says he will sit out some games but changes his mind at the last moment.

But why don't they ever GM? There's no special decoder ring necessary.:confused:

Quote from: Opaopajr;564565But why don't they ever GM? There's no special decoder ring necessary.:confused:

Viking hats cannot be held, let alone worn, by the weak.  

Every single Regular RPG still "uses GM fiat as a game tool". If it doesn't include that authority to the GM, its not a regular RPG.

And from my experience, there's been tons of regular RPGs published recently.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;564578Every single Regular RPG still "uses GM fiat as a game tool". If it doesn't include that authority to the GM, its not a regular RPG.

And from my experience, there's been tons of regular RPGs published recently.

RPGPundit

I'd agree with this.

I cannot, however, tolerate games that use GM fiat in lieu of actually writing fundamental mechanics -- games that treat "we left it up to the GM's imagination" as a feature rather than an omission.

In response to 'Why they never DM' Well, most of them do.

I just happen to be the one that is the most familiar with a variety of game systems.

One big point here is that I don't care what system I PLAY, where they do.

I am pickier about what I GM.

Quote from: StormBringer;564573Viking hats cannot be held, let alone worn, by the weak.  

I have encountered some truly epic fail GM's in the past.

Like the guy who would have his uber npc travel with the characters.
This npc was invulnerable, literally ate any gems the characters found, and had an ultra annoying personality. This guy also could not comprehend that 12 Ogres do not fit in a 10'x10' room, or that a normal man can't move 300' as a single action in combat.

Or the guy who would humiliate the characters at every turn.
Arm wrestling at the tavern? Expect to have your arm literally broken like a twig every time. Chasing someone? Expect them to vanish or teleport without fail. solve a mystery? Not a chance, but that dm pet npc will handle it!

Most GM's I have encountered are pretty good, but a small number are remarkably terrible.

Quote from: MGuy;564562What you can't do is design a game based on the expectation that people will not use your rules.

I strongly disagree.  I change/house-rule every game I play much -- including board games, card games, minis games, RPGs, etc. I don't play many computer RPGS/other computer games, but when I am considering buying one, modability is one of the major characteristics I look for in a game. When I design a game, I assume that others will as do the same and try to design it to be easy to modify -- for example, mainly independent systems so that a change to X has few (if any) effects on other parts of the system (at least that aren't fairly obvious).  I design with the expectation that the GM and players will ignore or replace any rules they do not like or that do not fit their style of play. I expect they will add rules they want as well.

I make it clear to players in the rules that the GM -- not the written rules -- is the final rules authority in the game. I also make it very clear that the GM's ruling may appear to be inconsistent over time not because the GM is incompetent but because the exact same situation rarely recurs in a game. Jumping one 8 foot crevice is probably not the exact some situation as jumping another 8 foot crevice. Heck the situation may be different with the same crevice depending on which direction you are jumping it.

Yes, I currently design what you rules light games (at least rules light in comparison to later TSR and all WOTC versions of D&D)m but I did the same thing when I was working on a never-published game system with hundreds of pages of rules.

Quote from: Opaopajr;564564Personally, in my experience, I've noticed a severe shift towards players chewing the holy hell out of the scenery, particularly in 3.5/4e/PF of the D&D iterations. And the most common permitting factor I've noted has been players obligingly pointing to their character sheet. It's as if they're more interested in triggering their combo than actually being a part of the rpg world setting. As this is a style I [Udo not enjoy or want to encourage in games I run[/U] I am interested in what aspects of the almighty character sheet and optimization fosters this attitude.

Given that EW and Imp feel there's a connecting level of GM being reduced to mechanical server, perhaps this is an area to explore this idea. Perhaps the lack of GM adjudication gives less weight to the setting? GM being relegated to mere mechanical function somehow neuters NPC agency, and thus renders a background impotent? Could this explain why then lore and scenery become dismissible and thus merely backdrops to one's awesome killer combos?

This is the meat of it. To clarify, I have never had any problems finding adequate challenges to use in a campaign. It isn't a problem of PC's being 'too powerful to challenge'.  The issue is that the primary interest in the game has gone from the adventure to the character sheet.

Last year I started running a Dragon Age campaign. The feedback I got from everyone was that they liked the campaign world, and enjoyed the adventures, but didn't want to continue playing because they didn't feel like they got enough new toys when gaining a level. The system, being rather simple, didn't provide the deck building opportunities that made the game interesting enough to keep playing.

 For the same reason, these players do not like GURPS. There are no "levels", and despite being able to build a character brick by brick and optimize if desired, getting character points every adventure isn't good enough.

I haven't run anything but the 5E playtest since that Dragon Age game. Right now I am a player in two different groups and my original group isn't meeting right now as no one has volunteered to run anything. It makes me a little sad that old group kind of fell apart though.

Quote from: Opaopajr;564564Before people get stupid here, we are discussing things in a spectrum. So let's assume we're not talking about GM adjudication being completely absent or completely dominant. We are adults here and can have nuanced conversations without being tiresomely explicit, yes?

Agreed. So to go back to the post from RPGnet that inspired this thread, the suggestion that non-combat activities such as social encounters be handled by GM fiat was dismissed as a non-starter; an absurdity.

Well, guess what my group does? Want to talk the dwarven miners into helping you clear out the spider caves? Talk away. Make a convincing argument. No dice involved.

Trying to find out the scuttlebutt on the transgressions of the priest of Amun-Ra? So where do you go? Who do you talk to? Maybe there will be dice involved. Maybe not.

Are you devising a method to climb up the colossal statue of Dagon, hoist up a ballista, without being seen? Describe away. Probably a climb roll involved at some point, but you better have a sound, detailed plan before we roll it. If you have a bad plan, the cultists will descend on you before you even have a chance to roll.

In short, my groups enjoys player challenges as much as they enjoy PC challenges. And everyone is onboard with me being the ultimate adjudicator of all those actions and tactics. The only element of play where dice-rolling is hard-coded into the game is combat. Even then, all situational modifiers are entirely at the discretion of the DM, including cover, the likelihood of surprise, flanking benefits, difficulty of casting spells, etc., and I'm free to change monster stats and abilities on a whim. Oh, and we ignore things like CL and EL.

So it should be clear that I'm alienated from the standard forms of modern D&D play as described on places such as RPGnet.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;564633This is the meat of it. To clarify, I have never had any problems finding adequate challenges to use in a campaign. It isn't a problem of PC's being 'too powerful to challenge'.  The issue is that the primary interest in the game has gone from the adventure to the character sheet.

Last year I started running a Dragon Age campaign. The feedback I got from everyone was that they liked the campaign world, and enjoyed the adventures, but didn't want to continue playing because they didn't feel like they got enough new toys when gaining a level. The system, being rather simple, didn't provide the deck building opportunities that made the game interesting enough to keep playing.

 For the same reason, these players do not like GURPS. There are no "levels", and despite being able to build a character brick by brick and optimize if desired, getting character points every adventure isn't good enough.

I haven't run anything but the 5E playtest since that Dragon Age game. Right now I am a player in two different groups and my original group isn't meeting right now as no one has volunteered to run anything. It makes me a little sad that old group kind of fell apart though.

Wow. They liked the game, but want more mechanics? I just don't get that. At all. I play rpg's for the roleplay and story, not for 'deck building'

Quote from: Bill;564649Wow. They liked the game, but want more mechanics? I just don't get that. At all. I play rpg's for the roleplay and story, not for 'deck building'

I know, it puzzled me too. Another member of our group offered to run a 4E essentials after that and we started playing. There were grumblings from the deck builders about that too because everything in the DDI wasn't permitted.

4E isn't my favorite by a mile, but I rolled an eladrin knight and had fun playing. The adventures and gathering with friends are far more important to me than mechanics.

Quote from: jibbajibba;564398You get a lot of negative reactions anywhere, Dungeons and dragons is like the ultimate geek. Even the geeks in Big Bang Theory don't do a lot of table top RPGs. Computer RPG stuff is more acceptable even though that actually involves having no friends and even less social skills.
If you go to a Con they are full of the most unattractive Socially enept people you are likely to see. Just watch the crowd of guys letching over the average looking girl in an superhero costume to see what I mean.
Comics have been saved by an association with mainstream movies and Comic Con is now viewed as mainstream. Computers were kind of saved by the dot com bubble and facebook (et al). But Dungeon and Dragons is still a stigma.

It's funny. As someone who grew up in the 80s I'm still occasionally shocked at the degree to which geekdom has been mainstreamed since 2000 or so.

Table top RPGing seems to be one of the few "core" geek activities that was left behind in that transition.

I blame attacks of opportunity.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;564633This is the meat of it. To clarify, I have never had any problems finding adequate challenges to use in a campaign. It isn't a problem of PC's being 'too powerful to challenge'.  The issue is that the primary interest in the game has gone from the adventure to the character sheet.

Last year I started running a Dragon Age campaign. The feedback I got from everyone was that they liked the campaign world, and enjoyed the adventures, but didn't want to continue playing because they didn't feel like they got enough new toys when gaining a level. The system, being rather simple, didn't provide the deck building opportunities that made the game interesting enough to keep playing.

 For the same reason, these players do not like GURPS. There are no "levels", and despite being able to build a character brick by brick and optimize if desired, getting character points every adventure isn't good enough.

I haven't run anything but the 5E playtest since that Dragon Age game. Right now I am a player in two different groups and my original group isn't meeting right now as no one has volunteered to run anything. It makes me a little sad that old group kind of fell apart though.

That's curious. My players, at least the core geek players are straight up 3.X players, deck building, power playing scenery chewers. Yet, when I forced Runequest upon them, while it didn't exactly make them into diehard roleplayers, they had no trouble adapting to a level-less 'deckless' game system.  I ran that campaign for two years.