Quote from: MGuy;564073Use your best judgment.

So wait? You doing a classic backpedal AGAIN? Jesus just because I'm a girl doesn't mean I'm stupid.  You sure about that response? Remember Marley CAN read despite what NBC says.

Quote from: Marleycat;564069@Ben, why are you impersonating Ghost Whistler? He gonna be really pissed.

Where the fuck are the Dark Eldars? And why isn't FFG doing anything about it? And why do I have to buy all these motherfucking books at gun point to then have to carry them around for miles to go to my gaming sessions? Why FFG?! Why do you hate me so???

Ben is worse than myself about avatars.  This current one is among my favorites though so we're all good.

Quote from: Benoist;564076Where the fuck are the Dark Eldars? And why isn't FFG doing anything about it? And why do I have to buy all these motherfucking books at gun point to then have to carry them around for miles to go to my gaming sessions? Why FFG?! Why do you hate me so???

You are going to make me pee in my pants, stop it.

Quote from: Marleycat;564075So wait? You doing a classic backpedal AGAIN? Jesus just because I'm a girl doesn't mean I'm stupid.  You sure about that response? Remember Marley CAN read despite what NBC says.

Backpedal? Exactly how am I backpedaling?

Quote from: MGuy;564080Backpedal? Exactly how am I backpedaling?

You basically say there must be at rules for everything.  So which Is it? 4e or 2e? One gives you skill challenges the other gives the GM saying "roll under this ability score and describe what you are trying"  Your get bonuses up front in 4e . You get bonuses as you go in 2e like White Wolf but you have to at least try and play it. 3e is bullshit unless you play Fantasy Craft. Yea even Pathfinder still has the same issues.  Thankfully to a lesser degree.

Quote from: Simlasa;563995No one I've actually played with has ever raised it as an issue... it's really something I've only seen talked about online.

And there we have it. It mostly seems to be an online problem for online people.

But Haffrung is right to claim the concept of GM judgement has been under strong attack for a few years, and what started out as a fringe concept has gained wider traction, tied to a lot of extra baggage like anti-hobbyist rhetoric and extremely uncharitable depictions of the gaming hobby. On online forums, sometimes including this one, this often goes hand in hand with the whole misery masturbation thing. That can make people lose sight of healthier social perspectives and lead to both hatred and self-loathing, which is then externalised on the whole gaming hobby.

I believe the best way to deal with this issue is simply to play in games built on trust and friendship. Cultivate generosity, mutual respect and good judgement, and try to maintain a healthy perspective. Granted, that is not a systematic solution, but I believe it is the best way to avoid being dragged down into conflicts which are impossible to win, but are possible to lose in a thousand way.

In short, "Illegitimi non carborundum".

Quote from: Marleycat;564081You basically say there must be at rules for everything.  So which Is it? 4e or 2e? One gives you skill challenges the other gives the GM saying "roll under this ability score and describe what you are trying"  Your get bonuses up front in 4e . You get bonuses as you go in 2e like White Wolf but you have to at least try and play it. 3e is bullshit unless you play Fantasy Craft. Yea even Pathfinder still has the same issues.  Thankfully to a lesser degree.

So what exactly does your opinions on various systems have to do with me and this alleged "back pedaling"?

Firstly: I don't believe there "can" be rules on "everything". I believe there "should" be rules for things that come up "often" or that are expected to come up regularly. Every edge case scenario, bizarrre situations, and campaign specific shennanigans can't feasibly be covered in the rules. If people have to go all the way to the fringes in order to point out deficiencies with your rules then they are good rules.

Secondly: 4E's Skill Challenges work like this: Players want to do some major task out of combat. GMs call for Skill Challenge. Each player then gets a turn to describe what they are gonna do. GM has player roll appropriate check. There are various details as to how else this goes down depending on what version of the Skill Challenges you're using but that's the general gist. While freeform skills are "doable" -and 4E failed at them- I, personally, don't like them.

Third: None of this explains how I'm back pedaling on anything.

Quote from: Marleycat;564081You basically say there must be at rules for everything.  So which IA it? 4e or 2e? One gives you skill challenges the other gives the GM saying "roll under this ability score and describe what you are trying"  Your get bonuses up front in 4e . You get bonuses as you go in 2e like White Wolf but you have to at least try and play it.

MGuy said that you can't write rules that specifically call out GM Fiat as a rule.
He is right.
Imagine a game where you went to cast a fireball and the rule said -
"When the PC casts a fireball it deals 5d6 damage to all creatures within 10 feet. The GM should decide on the damage and effect of the fireball on all other stuff and decide whether or not flamable material is effected"

What you want is the base caveat, or golden rule :
"The GM can modify rules and effects as they see fit and the GM is the final arbitrator at their table "  (if you cctually need to spell it out)

Then the spell needs to say:
"When the PC casts a fireball it deals 5d6 damage to all creatures within 10 feet. Any flamable material within the area of effect will also burn. Outside the area of effect materials are unaffected, ie there is no strong 'heat' affect in adjacent areas"

Now the second rule is much clearer. The Golden rule can still override it but to design the rule with 'fiat' in build is a mistake because it leads to unnecessary debate about a minor thing. (see Effect of Charm spells in other threads for a more detailed discussion on this topic). The DM could rule in their herioc game that your clothes and cloak are unaffected by a fireball because its 'magical fire' which is fine so long as its explained.

Now that is for a D&D type game. I run Amber. Because Amber is diceless and there are no rules around wounds, HP, damage, the effect of spells or well anything really you might expect in a RPG it's been said to totally run on GM fiat. I don't think it does actually but I can see how some people might think it does. The point is that in Amber the entire rule system is desinged like that so everyone goes with it.
The Fireball spell in Amber would read:
"The caster brings forth a Ball of flame."
Now when a plyer casts a fireball in Amber they expect it to be like a ball of fire and to act like one, so the GM can rule on its specific effects but the general behaviour is dictated by expectation and indeed as a GM I would ask, "What do you expect the fireball to achieve?" or somesuch.

So in a D&D setting I expect the rules to be concise and clear and to stand up on their own without intervention. I also expect the DM to be able to override said rules as they see fit but to do that in a consistent and impartial way.
Your thief getting an extra dex save when they fail their climb check so they don't fall 200 feet, is fine if it's consistently applied but not if it's only for my girlfriend or the guy that is paying for the pizzas.

In a game like Amber when the rules really don't matter (I never open my rulebooks when playing Amber I just make all decisions as they come up based on GM fiat) everyone buys into that premise but the only way to make that game work is to have GM fiat trumped by common sense, consistency and fairness. If I shoot you with a pistol from 10 feet away the effect is the same as if you shot me, even though the rules don't tell you what that effect should be.

Wow, you have to write paragraphs? And still you're wrong? What is this? Some carryover from the F/W thread? Cool with me. I"m just going with what he's actually said on this very site.  Nevermind I guess.

Having run Pathfinder for a couple of years (although stopped a few months ago) I find that it's a rules system that tries to rule everything and of course fails in that.
But it's the sort of game that tends to attract the type of player that likes to have no "GM fiat" or at least a very minor part in gaming.
There were times when rules weren't clear and I had to make on the spot rulings anyway, so really trying to cover everything isn't possible and makes thing needlessly complex and really takes the creative power away from a GM.

That was part of the reason I stopped running Pathfinder, I felt too strongly bound by the rules.

Of course if people like that sort of thing then fine go ahead and play it, it's just not for me and as a GM I prefer more freedom.

Quote from: danskmacabre;564106Having run Pathfinder for a couple of years (although stopped a few months ago) I find that it's a rules system that tries to rule everything and of course fails in that.
But it's the sort of game that tends to attract the type of player that likes to have no "GM fiat" or at least a very minor part in gaming.
There were times when rules weren't clear and I had to make on the spot rulings anyway, so really trying to cover everything isn't possible and makes thing needlessly complex and really takes the creative power away from a GM.

That was part of the reason I stopped running Pathfinder, I felt too strongly bound by the rules.

Of course if people like that sort of thing then fine go ahead and play it, it's just not for me and as a GM I prefer more freedom.

I play Pathfinder. I like it, is it really that rescrictive from the DM view? Like your avatar, what is it?

Quote from: Marleycat;564101Wow, you have to write paragraphs? And still you're wrong? What is this? Some carryover from the F/W thread? Cool with me. I"m just going with what he's actually said on this very site.  Nevermind I guess.

Sorry Marley I am quite verbose. Mainly because I always try to illustrate with examples because I think it aids clarity.
Obviously in this regard I am mistaken.

Quote from: jibbajibba;564110Sorry Marley I am quite verbose. Mainly because I always try to illustrate with examples because I think it aids clarity.
Obviously in this regard I am mistaken.

Jibba, I only ask or care because me you and Drohem are the only 2e people here.  So color me confused you don't prefer a looser game?

Quote from: Marleycat;564108I play Pathfinder. I like it, is it really that rescrictive from the DM view? Like your avatar, what is it?

It's from a movie called "Duck you sucker" or "A fistful of dynamite" depending on the country of release.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck,_You_Sucker!

It's a sort of late period Western, made by Sergio Leone, the same guy who made " a fistful of dollars"  etc....

I thoroughly enjoyed running pathfinder for the first 18 months I suppose but slowly got sick of how restrictive it was. There are just TOO many rules IMO which can bind the options for a GM and makes for more prep work.

Compare that to say Runequest which allows a lot more freedom and it was an easy choice for me.
Also I have another gaming group that I run and play MRQ2/Legend/Elric for.
I wanted to drop something to free up some time and out of the 2 by far I was enjoying the Runequest system more.
So I dropped Pathfinder.
I DO think Pathfinder is good fun up to about 10 level tho. But from that point onwards it just gets unmanageable and a rules lawyer/minimaxer playground.