Quote from: Fifth Element;564145So what's the point of the stats scribbled on the piece of paper then? If the character's capabilities are not to be considered, why do they have capabilities at all?

The fine art of statistics mattering while not serving as a substitute for a player seems to be just as dead a game tool as GM judgement.

It is easy to turn this around. What's the point of playing the game if the character sheet is the final arbiter of success? The WOTC D&D paradigm has been one of deck building being as important if not more so, than decisions made in actual play.

Quote from: jadrax;563979If you look at D&D as the market leader, then one of the stated goals of 5th edition is to put GM judgement back at the front and centre of the game.

I hope that's true. But if they do, a lot of forum wonks will squeel.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;564043I also don't see how the linked post has anything to do with GM fiat.

The author talks about how to resolve non-combat situations in a fair way. He dismisses DM fiat out of hand before he moves on to present his position.

Quote from: Haffrung;564152But if they do, a lot of forum wonks will squeel.

This is going to be true no matter WHAT ends up being released.

Quote from: Benoist;564045PS: calling GM judgment and adjudication "fiat" is already coopting the language of those who want to see the GM's balls cut off for good. It's jargon that is used as a bludgeon and you're better off rejecting it wholesale, IMO.

Oh, I agree. I should have put "fiat" in quotes, instead of brackets.

To my mind if you generate a character with low social skills, (Low CHA, low diplomacy skills whatever), then it should be Roleplayed as such.
It IS a ROLEplaying game after all.

If you're the sort of player that knows you only want to roleplay in a way that is  highly diplomatic or UNdiplomatic, then you should generate a character as such.

Why is that so difficult?

In an actual RP session if someone wants to purely RP out something as opposed to making a Diplomacy or whatever check, then that's fine with me.
but I expect them to RP within the limitations of their character..

Some people like to do a BIT of RP which if good, I allow a bonus to skill checks.

Other people just want to make a dice roll and are too self conscious to actually talk out the RP, which I'm cool with too.

Hell perhaps someone is really undiplomatic and might use Intimidate instead, which they could RP out instead..

Quote from: Benoist;564061NO. It's an illusion created by sites like RPGnet. Don't be a moron. Don't drink the kool aid.


NO. It's a battle that's over alright, and as shitcakes like D&D 4e have clearly shown, we role players actually won. It's the guys on forums like RPGnet and the designers who drank the Forge kool aid that are not realizing it yet.

I guess that's what has me concerned. If the biggest RPG publisher in the business has adopted the airtight, comprehensive mechanics model, that's a victory for the chattering wonks who don't trust DMs and want to turn RPGs into tactical wargames.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that sentiment expressed by forgites. I am saddened to see it so readily accepted by D&D fans. Though, as others have pointed, perhaps RPGNet isn't representative of D&D fandom.

My other concern is that the creators of D&D do seem to be letting forum theorists shape the game. It seems to me that WotC have lost confidence in their own vision for the game, and 5E is going to be a hodgepodge of modes of play championed on various forums. And I'd hate to see the assumptions about non-combat gameplay expressed in the thread I linked to taken up as part of D&D permanently.

Quote from: Melan;564084I 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".

I'm not worried about my own group, who accept GM discretionary judgement as the cornerstone of our playstyle, and who embrace player challenge. But I still have enough interest in modern RPG trends and mechanics that this stuff concerns me.

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.

But isn't Pathfinder the second most popular RPG on the market?

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

Absolutely, I'm not saying it's a bad game. It's a GOOD game for what it's designed for. It's just not really to MY tastes.
I primarily started running it 2 years ago as I couldn't get enough players to try out other games. So I ran that whilst trying to build up a bigger playerbase for other games (which I have since done) .

[edit]Now I have a decent playerbase for other games I have dropped Pathfinder
I would add I think it fails in addressing all the rules and I think it goes to far with rules, however many people think it;s great and love discussing the ins and outs of the rules minutae, including discussing and resolving the rules conflicts or rules that aren't very clear.

Quote from: Planet Algol;564062"There's no rules for dogsled chases? What ever will we do!"

Well durrr! Obviously, you can't chase a dogsled.  

Must...be..a..rule..or...can't.....function

Everyone knows my RULE is LAW when we play, I listen to what they have to say but when a call is made, it's final.  I usually only need to do this when no mechanic in the rules set are there to adjudicate the situation in hand, but then I really don't like playing games that have a rule for every little thing possible a player can do anyhow, I am old school, really old school.

Quote from: MGuy;564085So 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.

Does anyone actually use skill challenges?
When I gm 4E, I ignore the horrid skill challenges and freeform the skill checks.
Works great for me. In fact, when I GM pathfinder I handle skills the same way as I do in 4E.
Freeform for me being 'Player says what they are doing, and I suggest a skill to use, and the result of the skill roll influences, but doesnot dictate, a reasonable result'

I would prefer to run 1E/2E, but my players demand Pathfinder and 4E.
So I never get to do 1E/2E.

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 would not say Pathfinder binds you to the rules, but it can get too complex for my taste. I am running a Pathfinder Dark Sun game at the moment, and enjoying it. At level 5 things are pretty smooth. Higher levels can get more complicated than my comfort zone.

Quote from: Marleycat;564112Jibba, 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?

I am a 2E person!

We exist!