SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Is GM judgement (fiat) dead as a game tool?

Started by Haffrung, July 24, 2012, 09:42:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 17
User actions

Doctor Jest

#150
July 26, 2012, 07:21:15 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;564955I 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.

That's a valid point. RPG developers are, after all, trying to make a product they believe that players today will enjoy, AND they have to innovate in new directions in order to convince gamers to buy new books. So a small but very vocal minority can quickly look like market forces to a hungry developer with no budget for a real market survey.

I think the demise of 4e, with it's underperforming sales from the perspective of WoTC and D&D being toppled from its perch at the top of the sales pyramid shows pretty clearly that the audience for that kind of game isn't very large.

Money talks, bullshit walks. The only question is who and what is going to be
left holding the money when all is said and done.

Doctor Jest

#151
July 26, 2012, 07:24:24 PM
Quote from: RandallS;564967. For example, if you need classes balanced at every level a game like AD&D 1e .

That's not a need. That's a want. When it comes down to it, those sorts of tweaks aren't about suitability or completeness or functionality of rules. They're about aesthetic preferences. "I like balanced classes" is like saying "I like cheese". It's not an objectively measurable thing, and it's not something anyone "needs".

Bedrockbrendan

#152
July 26, 2012, 07:25:02 PM
Quote from: RandallS;564967I 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.


This pretty much nails it for me. I sometimes enjoy rules heavy systems with a mechanic for everything, used to enjoy them a lot. But the past six years or so, lighter systems that put more in the GM's court seem to work better for me. There is no platonic ideal design for games.

Opaopajr

#153
July 26, 2012, 07:30:59 PM
Quote from: Doctor Jest;564977That's not a need. That's a want. When it comes down to it, those sorts of tweaks aren't about suitability or completeness or functionality of rules. They're about aesthetic preferences. "I like balanced classes" is like saying "I like cheese". It's not an objectively measurable thing, and it's not something anyone "needs".

Oh how eminently quotable this is... Oops, lookie there, I just quoted it myself. Pretty like a picture, it is.
Just make your fuckin\' guy and roll the dice, you pricks. Focus on what\'s interesting, not what gives you the biggest randomly generated virtual penis.  -- J Arcane
 
You know, people keep comparing non-TSR D&D to deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. But maybe it\'s more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star.
-- talysman

Emperor Norton

#154
July 26, 2012, 07:48:18 PM Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 07:50:44 PM by Emperor Norton
Quote from: Doctor Jest;564975I think the demise of 4e, with it's underperforming sales from the perspective of WoTC and D&D being toppled from its perch at the top of the sales pyramid shows pretty clearly that the audience for that kind of game isn't very large.

Except the game that toppled 4e from the top (which, I'm not sure if it did, we've never seen definitive sales reports, but I'm not going to disbelieve that it did) is Pathfinder. Which is basically house ruled 3.5. Which ALSO had to have a rule for everything (and rules based on a ton of different subsystems even!). So I'm not sure that your conclusion makes sense.

(I'm also in the "I like rules heavy games sometimes but am drifting towards lighter games nowadays" camp. Though for some reason Fantasy Craft seriously appeals to me, despite the weight of its rules).

Doctor Jest

#155
July 26, 2012, 08:10:30 PM Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 08:14:10 PM by Doctor Jest
Quote from: Emperor Norton;564988Except the game that toppled 4e from the top (which, I'm not sure if it did, we've never seen definitive sales reports, but I'm not going to disbelieve that it did) is Pathfinder. Which is basically house ruled 3.5. Which ALSO had to have a rule for everything (and rules based on a ton of different subsystems even!). So I'm not sure that your conclusion makes sense.

I'm not sure what you mean. Complexity isn't what I'm talking about. In fact, I think 4e is, generally, less complex than 3e. It's more abou specificity of the use cases for the rules than the number of rules or their depth or complexity.

Marleycat

#156
July 26, 2012, 08:13:58 PM
Quote(I'm also in the "I like rules heavy games sometimes but am drifting towards lighter games nowadays" camp. Though for some reason Fantasy Craft seriously appeals to me, despite the weight of its rules).
But a huge advantage of Fantasy Craft is that is it highly modular. Yes it is dense but unlike 4e or even 3e you can literally chuck out whole subsystems ala 2e and it won't bother a thing. (Big FC fangirl here).
Don\'t mess with cats we kill wizards in one blow.;)

Emperor Norton

#157
July 26, 2012, 08:19:39 PM
Quote from: Doctor Jest;564994I'm not sure what you mean. Complexity isn't what I'm talking about. In fact, I think 4e is, generally, less complex than 3e. It's more abou specificity of the use cases for the rules than the number of rules or their depth or complexity.

Ah, ok, in that case, your conclusion is making sense.

Though honestly, I think 4e had a lot of really good ideas, and as long as you get players that don't expect everything to be run exactly RAW and with everything included, it can be really fun for a high adventure game with tons of combat. Unfortunately, I think it developed a culture, at least online and with the in shop demos and shit, of being "THE RULES ARE KING, THE PENIS IS EVIL, The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the rules shoot death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!"

Wait, that quote really didn't work in this context at all...

Fifth Element

#158
July 26, 2012, 10:04:36 PM
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
What is a "regular RPG"? Other than one that uses GM fiat as a game tool, since that would really be a circular definition.

Or to put it another way, why should one care whether an RPG is "regular" or not?
Iain Fyffe

Bill

#159
July 27, 2012, 12:51:57 AM
Quote from: Marleycat;564997But a huge advantage of Fantasy Craft is that is it highly modular. Yes it is dense but unlike 4e or even 3e you can literally chuck out whole subsystems ala 2e and it won't bother a thing. (Big FC fangirl here).

Ok, I took a look at FC review, and it sounds interesting.

How would you say it compare to Pathfinder in feel and ease of play?

Exploderwizard

#160
July 27, 2012, 08:33:09 AM
Quote from: Fifth Element;565039What is a "regular RPG"? Other than one that uses GM fiat as a game tool, since that would really be a circular definition.

Or to put it another way, why should one care whether an RPG is "regular" or not?

Because its good to know if a particular game is going to be about playing a character in a given world, or sitting around co-writing fiction with a table full of storywankers.

Both types of game can be fun entertainment but they ARE different experiences.
Quote from: JonWakeGamers, as a whole, are much like primitive cavemen when confronted with a new game. Rather than \'oh, neat, what\'s this do?\', the reaction is to decide if it\'s a sex hole, then hit it with a rock.

Quote from: Old Geezer;724252At some point it seems like D&D is going to disappear up its own ass.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.

1of3

#161
July 27, 2012, 09:40:07 AM
GM fiat as concerns the rules is simply not necessary. Why include it?

Exploderwizard

#162
July 27, 2012, 09:44:38 AM
Quote from: 1of3;565190GM fiat as concerns the rules is simply not necessary. Why include it?

In case you were interested in playing an rpg instead of a wargame.
Quote from: JonWakeGamers, as a whole, are much like primitive cavemen when confronted with a new game. Rather than \'oh, neat, what\'s this do?\', the reaction is to decide if it\'s a sex hole, then hit it with a rock.

Quote from: Old Geezer;724252At some point it seems like D&D is going to disappear up its own ass.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.

Bill

#163
July 27, 2012, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: 1of3;565190GM fiat as concerns the rules is simply not necessary. Why include it?

You need to say in the rulebook of an rpg "The Gamemaster is expected to bend the rules when needed, for the betterment of the game"

A novice gm might not realize that otherwise.


Or did you mean there is no need for specific GM Fiat mechanics?

Fifth Element

#164
July 27, 2012, 08:21:04 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;565166Because its good to know if a particular game is going to be about playing a character in a given world, or sitting around co-writing fiction with a table full of storywankers.

Both types of game can be fun entertainment but they ARE different experiences.
I was confused by the addition of "regular" in front of RPG. As I understand it story games are not to be called RPGs, so I wasn't sure what he was trying to differentiate here.
Iain Fyffe
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 17
User actions