Quote from: Dimitrios;564665It'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.

To be fair magic players have a hard time as well..... if you recall - http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/09/the-geeky-lesson-of-the-magic-the-gathering-dating-kerfuffle/244400/

Quote from: Exploderwizard;564655I 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.

I wonder if some people just don't understand that 'Winning' in an rpg is 'having fun' not literally winning.



Wait....if literally winning is fun for them...uh oh!

Quote from: Bill;564198I am a 2E person!

We exist!

Yes, we do. I like 2e too.

Quote from: Haffrung;564647Agreed. 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.

The major disconnect you have from purple is that unlike purple, you actually play tabletop role-playing games.

I think there has been a bit of a fashion of late in RPG design to try to minimize or move away from GM Fiat. I think this fashion is ill-considered and generally driven by wack-job Forge theories. I think it's also going to be relatively short-lived.

You can't both have comprehensive, tight-knit rules AND be able to have an experience where the only true limits are your imagination, because if your imagination isn't big enough to think of something that the Rules, no matter how comprehensive, haven't, then you're better off with a video game anyways.

And really, when you look at it, GM Fiat hasn't really been removed in alot of cases. In the Wack-Job Forge games, it's generally just redistributed, often in the self-congradulatory manner of being a Fiat Robin Hood, stealing from the Fiat-Rich Evil GM and distributing it to the Poor Players with their lack of Fiat. Saviors of the masses! Huzzah!

Mostly, I think the motivation is an attempt to prevent assholish behavior at the game table, but being unwilling to simply stop playing games with assholes.

Quote from: Haffrung;564165But isn't Pathfinder the second most popular RPG on the market?

Actually, Pathfinder is probably number one right now. WoTC has done a splendid of shooting itself in the foot. There are more gamers purchasing or playing 3.x/Pathfinder games (online or off), than 4.x games. And the pre-3e crowd is likely much larger than many people think, probably because the "old school" group is so completely decentralized and disorganized in comparison. But perhaps we should start a separate thread about that topic..

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

So if it doesn't use GM Fiat as a game tool, it's not a regular RPG.  Sounds like 'every Scotsman'.  If an RPG doesn't require GM fiat in any sense, it couldn't be a regular RPG?  I don't know if that follows.  Certainly such a game seems like an impossibility - even modeling physics in the game world is way too hard for people around a table to model accurately, but it's at least possible that the rules would cover 'everything'.  

Which brings up a point of clarification that I think the subject deserves.

There is a difference between the DM determing what rules most likely apply to a situation and a DM deciding NOT to apply rules.  

If a PC decides to jump over a river of lava using a 'pole-vault technique' (you know, like in the Acrobat in the D&D cartoon), the DM could decide any number of things.  It could be a bonus to the skill check.  It could be automatic success.  It could be TWO checks - one to see if you use the pole correctly (let's say Dex DC 10) plus a Jump check...  In general, deciding that it is automatic success or failure is much more of an issue that 'translating' the described action into game rules.  

More importantly, the DM should probably be able to tell the player how an action would be translated into game rules before the player commits to the action.  A big one - new players often want to do like 15 things in a round - the DM needs to explain how much they can do in one 'turn'.  They shouldn't start applying the action and then spring it on the player that he only accomplishes the first step of his 15 step plan...

Quote from: RandallS;564628I 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.

That's not what he said.  If you release a game, you should expect that people will use the rules you've written as the base.  Some may modify it, but if you EXPECT them to all modify it in the same way, those changes are the rules you SHOULD have released.  

Rules should be 'complete' as much as possible.  If they need to be changed to 'work', then they should be changed before they're released.  

If it's a complete working rule set, people CAN modify them if they want, particularly to achieve a particular flavor, but they shouldn't HAVE to.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;564881So if it doesn't use GM Fiat as a game tool, it's not a regular RPG.

Yes.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;564881Sounds like 'every Scotsman'.

No.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;564881If an RPG doesn't require GM fiat in any sense, it couldn't be a regular RPG?

No.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;564881I don't know if that follows.  

It does.

Quote from: Haffrung;563975One of the saddest things about this very sad thread on RPGNet is the offhand dismissal of GM judgement (or fiat) as a game tool, as expressed in this post. It seems these days, GM judgement is simply a non-starter. Social interaction has to be governed by mechanics, skills, and rolls - not roleplaying skill - or else the game is unfair or broken.

I know this has been a contentious issue for years. But it seems as though the battle is won, and the mechanics-govern-everything party holds the field. Are there any commercially popular RPGs today that explicitly say GM fiat is okay for social interaction and other roleplaying situations that traditionally challenge player skill?

Really depnds on the game. There's a reason I generally prefer older game systems. But the main reason I refer to WHFRP 3E as an "old school" game, despite the fiddly bits that seem to have the power to distort people's perceptions, is that it's all about, completely supportive of, and completely relies on "GM Fiat", or what I like to call "The Common Sense Engine".

These are actually the only types of RPGs I like to play. Games where GMs are expected to "follow the rules", or have masses of unecessary rules to compensate for or attempt to replace the GM have no appeal to me.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;564013Would Palladium count as 'Commercially popular today'? It explicitly forbids the existence of PC social skills/abilities (beyond the PC having Mental Affinity & Physical Beauty attributes). Though it also gets a lot of flack, particularly at rpg.net.

I haven't seen a Palladium book for sale in a gaming store in over a decade, other than in a few "used books" sections.

I see this discussion as being something of a false dichotomy - either the GM is the absolute ruler of the game or the group has equal voting rights. This is of course nonsense, any GM needs to stay receptive to what their players want, before, during and after the game. Players have a marvellous habit of throwing a spanner in the works of any plan, so most importantly the GM needs to be able to ad lib on the spot.

It works to the favour of certain radicalisationists to perpetuate this false dichtomy, but that does not make it any less false.

I really honestly can't imagine a game that doesn't have some form of GM judgment and remains an RPG. Even with something like the "Mythic GM Emulator" it relies on the players acting as a collective GM with the judgment that implies.

It seems more tautological (that a GM (in some form, even if its not the traditional form) is part of the definition of an RPG) than an every scotsman fallacy.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;564875I think there has been a bit of a fashion of late in RPG design to try to minimize or move away from GM Fiat. I think this fashion is ill-considered and generally driven by wack-job Forge theories. I think it's also going to be relatively short-lived.

You can't both have comprehensive, tight-knit rules AND be able to have an experience where the only true limits are your imagination, because if your imagination isn't big enough to think of something that the Rules, no matter how comprehensive, haven't, then you're better off with a video game anyways.

I think you're right about the origins of the attitude. I'm just concerned that commercial RPG developers pay too much attention to RPG forums, and this stuff becomes canon. D&D, especially, seems to have succombed to the pressure to mechanically define everything in the game, and give the rules pre-eminence over DMs.

Quote from: TristramEvans;564900Really depnds on the game. There's a reason I generally prefer older game systems. But the main reason I refer to WHFRP 3E as an "old school" game, despite the fiddly bits that seem to have the power to distort people's perceptions, is that it's all about, completely supportive of, and completely relies on "GM Fiat", or what I like to call "The Common Sense Engine".

Yes, Fantasy Flight do seem to have taken a different path with WFRP 3E than WotC took with D&D 4E. Mechnically, it's quite loose. There isn't a fixation on making the game an arena for tactical combat showcasing the effectiveness of your build.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;564881That's not what he said.  If you release a game, you should expect that people will use the rules you've written as the base.  Some may modify it, but if you EXPECT them to all modify it in the same way, those changes are the rules you SHOULD have released.

That isn't what I read in the post I was replying to. Here's the entire original content of the post I replied to:

QuoteThis. 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.

If what you said is what was really meant, I have much less problem with it, but I have trouble seeing "What you can't do is design a game based on the expectation that people will not use your rules" as meaning "...you should expect that people will use the rules you've written as the base." Emphasis added.

QuoteRules should be 'complete' as much as possible.

I don't want rules that are "'complete' as much as possible." I want rules that are general guidelines that allow the GM to easily handle a wide variety of situations without having to remember (or worse, look up) a large number of specific case/situation rules. Many people prefer this, many others prefer a rule for everything, many others prefer some point in between. There is no one true way to design a TTRPG. A set of game rules is not broken because it is less complete/more complete than a particular player or group of players likes. Statements like the one quoted above this paragraph make it sounds like there is only one true way to design a TTRPG.

QuoteIf they need to be changed to 'work', then they should be changed before they're released.

The rules I write work fine usually in campaign settings similar to those I run and with players who play in style similar to those I enjoy. The further you get from those baselines, the more likely the rules will need to be changed to work for a given campaign. For example, based on what you and Ben have said about the types of games you like on this forum, I am fairly sure that if you wanted to use my rules, they would require more changes (probably a lot more) than if Ben wanted to use my rules.

QuoteIf it's a complete working rule set, people CAN modify them if they want, particularly to achieve a particular flavor, but they shouldn't HAVE to.

I've found that in the vast majority of cases, whether or not the rules NEED to be modified to work depends more on well the rules as designed align with the desires and expectations of the group using them. For example, if you need classes balanced at every level a game like AD&D 1e (which balances classes across all levels, allowing classes to start weaker than others but grow to where they are more powerful than others) will have to be modified whereas if you like classes balanced across all levels instead the game will be fine as written. IMHO, a game isn't broken or poorly designed because it was not designed as a particular player or group of players want and therefore needs to be modified to meet their needs.