Quote from: Bill;564234Well, the players do tend to be happier if you give them what they want.

I have a few otherwise awesome players that get all bent out of shape over what game system we will use.

Likewise here. In those instances I happily play whatever they wish to run.

I won't run any system that doesn't make me look forward to preparing and running it, I don't care how happy it would make any players.

Once upon a time I did run systems that didn't really click for me and preparation became a chore instead of leisure activity that I looked forward to. The games only lasted so long under such circumstances. If the GM isn't really happy its only a matter of time before the players become unhappy.

Quote from: Benoist;564071Well it's better than the GM being the tool.

"Jersey Shore: The Tool Playing Game (Master)"

Oh, what horrible mental imagery!
 
xD


Regarding the topic: No, GM judgement is not dead. Thank Jeebus it isn't!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;564253Likewise here. In those instances I happily play whatever they wish to run.

I won't run any system that doesn't make me look forward to preparing and running it, I don't care how happy it would make any players.

Once upon a time I did run systems that didn't really click for me and preparation became a chore instead of leisure activity that I looked forward to. The games only lasted so long under such circumstances. If the GM isn't really happy its only a matter of time before the players become unhappy.

I think as GM you have to at least like the system you end up running. I wouldn't be able to run 4E for a group of players who wanted it because my lack of enthusiasm, not the syste, would ruin the campaign. But I can run stuff outside my comfort zone to please players.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;564034Social mechanics should compliment, but never replace, good old-fashioned roleplay. The two can work hand-in-hand, but it takes a great group of players who all understand the expectations set upon them by the GM to make rational decisions their characters would make, given the milieu of the game world.

In truth, I really don't see the issue as a GM fiat so much as shift in what kind of roleplay is considered acceptable around the table. 4E D&D highlights my frustrations; game design has largely went the way of the lazy who wish to emulate Diablo on the tabletop. While there's certainly nothing wrong with this sort of play style, it has become a pervasive theme amongst "copycat" publishers and infectious amongst players' perceptions of role-playing games.

I can't say it any better than this, so I'll just jump onboard.

GM fiat still exists, and needs to in tabletop RPGs. The judgement of a GM is an important part of the game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;564216I'm flabbergasted. I won't run jack or shit due to player demand. I will play any system someone is willing to run, but no way will I have the system that I run dictated by others.

My motto is : you love it so much, great then run it.

Notice that he said he would "prefer" 1E/2E, not that he hates PF/4E. If the latter is your second choice and the rest of the group's first choice, then it's pretty fair to play the latter. You have to consider the desires of the group if you're going to be a part of it.

Now, he also said that his players "demand" PF/4E, which is another matter entirely. That implies they're not making the same sort of consideration.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;564215For those who like 2E, I'd like to point out the books are still available pretty cheap on amazon. I just restocked on my brown books (which I threw away in a move a few years ago) and it only cost me 20 cents each for many of them. Next up: green books.

Lies! Where have I been, wasting my time at Half Price Books and other used book stores!?

must... attempt... completion. gotta... catch... them all. home... running out... of space.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;564216I'm flabbergasted. I won't run jack or shit due to player demand. I will play any system someone is willing to run, but no way will I have the system that I run dictated by others.

My motto is : you love it so much, great then run it.

Yeah, that's also mind blowing to me. I'm not a servant, I'm a participant, too. I know about the bonds of friendship and everything, but that's just an odd lack of reciprocity and consideration.

If you really want something, why won't you take greater responsibility for 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.

I ask you how I am back pedaling, I get no response other than the fact that there are various systems and you have opinions on them. None of which have to do with your accusation. Jibba and I both clarify for you and you complain about the explanation being too long for you to read and still don't provide any reason to accuse me of back pedaling. Highlighted so you don't have to read the whole thing.
______________________________________________________________________
Anyways, yes. When you design a game you don't design it with GM fiat in mind. Attempting to do so is impractical. You'd have to design your whole game with the idea that any and all of the rules you write will be thrown out the window. You have to first design a game that is functional. If a GM later decides to throw out rules or change them that is there perogative but unless you're going for a rules-lite/tool kit approach your goal is to make such action as unnecessary as possible. If you're playing a rules-lite or tool-kit game then you probably aren't lacking in fiat.

In a rules lite game it doesn't matter if rules are thrown out because in rules lite games "rules" aren't important. If you ever think that rules ARE important in a rules-lite game YOU ARE WRONG. Rules are made fast an easy and most of the math doesn't need to work out because you only need it to work for your style of play and tell others to throw out the rules and/or change them at their leisure if there are ever any problems. Anybody pointing out that your rules don't work will always be countered by saying something along the lines of "Well it was built to support -this- kind of play if you don't play this ay its an easy fix" or "You're just playing it wrong. If you were playing it -right- you wouldn't have any problems". Rince and repeat with varying degrees of color for any rule-lite game in existance.

In tool-kits (like GURPS) you don't need a fully functioning game. You just need "enough" of a game that other people can take what you've written and attempt to make a full game out of it. You don't need all the pieces to fit together. You don't need all the options to be balanced. All you need is enough pieces that someone can craft something that is semi functional themselves so you don't have to do it. Bonus points if you obfuscate problems with your tool kit such that your average gamer can't pick out the mistakes at a first few glances.

Even so you still don't make the rules in any game with the expectation that they will not function the ay you envision them. When you design a game you expect people to play in a certain way or to stick to certain guidelines. You "cannot" account for everyone's tastes. You have to pick a direction and go in it.
___________________________________________________________________________
On 4E skill challenges. They didn't work when I played the game. As far as I know various iterations of it had since spawned and all of them don't work (or so I hear). That much is not being argued. But the reason that they don't work is mathmatical not conceptual (though personally I do not like freeform skills). The concept of the GM ass pulling Target Numbers and allowing players to declare a skill and explain how they are using it to help is as freeform as you can get. If you don't care about math then 4E skills should work perfectly for you. I am fairly sure most people o this board are antimath so I'm going to assume that the hate comes from it being a "4E" thing.

I traded off my entire MINT CONDITION 2E books to the local game store, I never played them anymore, I even had the CD-Roms for Character Generation and all that, still have the Forgotten Realms CD though, forgot to trade it off.

I really just play OSRIC 1E AD&D or BASIC B/X stuff, we tried 4E it was ok, and we tried PF, it was GOD AWFULLY Complex to GM and took too much time to get ready, I saw the Beginners Box set and rules, now if that went to say Level 14 like D&D B/X I would have jumped on that, that was just our complexity for a good time.  And if were not in the mood for TSR style D&D stuff, we whip out the old and trusted Stormbringer or BRP or Runequest stuff for a break.  Oh I noticed Marley changed her Avatar again......

Quote from: Bill;564234Well, the players do tend to be happier if you give them what they want.

I have a few otherwise awesome players that get all bent out of shape over what game system we will use.

Somewhere in heaven there's a grotto named "Patience" with your statue in it.

Anyone who gets all bent out of shape about the game I'm running is free to play a CCG or video games in the meanwhile. Or they can get off their ass and run it themselves, if they think it's that important. My free time is not there to prep your fantasies over my interests.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;564208I agree this is a valid point. It is one I have thought about a great deal over the last year. Ultimately this is an issue of taste, but I concluded that for me it is more important to feel like I am there in character than to simulate a character. So ignoring the social skills gives me a more direct experience of the role I am playing. Rolling diplomacy pulls me out, and can even undo the specifics of the RP interaction.

When it comes to players who are not socially adept trying to play characters who are, again for me it is more a matter of feel than actual performance. So I give an A for effort, and I still do use the social rolls...I just do so very judiciously and in ways that don't work against the rp.

.

There is a balance. I RP everything . Shit we once had a CoC game where dinner at the gathering point took 2 hours in game time..... But I still like Social skills.

However, a good GM can solve this dichotomy. I am trying to pursuade a Frost Giant that it's in his best interest to accompany us to a dragon's lair. The PC uses an argument that the Dragon poses a real and genuine threat to the Frost Giant's tribe and the giant has a better chance of getting rid of it if he works with this party of brave adventurers than without.  I will then make a decision based on GM fiat as to how reasonable that is as a plan based on the personality of a Frost Giant. Then I will use it as a modifier to a pursuade/fast talk/rhetoric roll based on the Charater's skill.
If the player had mentioned the Frost Giant would get a share of the dragon's horde they would have gotten a better modifier.
If they had explained ooo that they were trying to sort of hint that the party would probably be massively weakened by the conflict and would be a soft target for the Giant to finish off.

So the base position might give the PC a modifier of -8. With no RP they get -8.
If they come up with a decent plan (the one listed above) that might bump it to a -5
If they mention the horde or treasure then maybe a -2
If they can get across the idea that the party migh be easy prey themselves then maybe 0

If the PC has diplomacy +4,459 then they really can get away with the base offering, because they really are that pursuasive. The Player spent as many points/feats/good rolls/class abilities on that skill as the figther did getting 5 dart attacks at +7/+14 per round so its only fair they get to use it to its fullest.

Quote from: Opaopajr;564274Somewhere in heaven there's a grotto named "Patience" with your statue in it.

Anyone who gets all bent out of shape about the game I'm running is free to play a CCG or video games in the meanwhile. Or they can get off their ass and run it themselves, if they think it's that important. My free time is not there to prep your fantasies over my interests.

The basic problem I've noticed in these parts about 3E & 4E is this:

Everyone wants to, or is willing to play but no one wants to run it.

My theory on why:

Introverted rules focus. The game world and adventures for the deck builder are merely a 2D scrolling scene against which they get to use their awesome kewl abilities. The focus of the game becomes more about the special snowflakes and what they are able to do mechanically than the adventures being participated in.

The GM meanwhile, preps material for which the players have only a tertiary interest, as they comb through splatbooks planning their next several levels of awesomeness.

Despite being a favorite system of some players, no one wants to be the server because they wouldn't get to build a deck.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;564239I don't know how things are in Canada with gaming, here there is still a bit of a stigma attached to it. That may be a factor. I am pretty open about it myself, but I can understand people not wanting to bring it up due to some of the reactions I have seen.

I think that, as you just hinted at with this paragraph, it's not so much that there is an actual stigma attached to tabletop RPG gaming anymore (I mean, I talk about D&D with priests of the Catholic Church - had a priest attend one of my Vampire the Masquerade game sessions of all things!, United Church, etc, folks aren't going all crazy about D&D = Satan anymore, unless of course we're talking about extreme individuals and/or denominations), it's that the stigma is in the gamers' heads themselves, like it's something to be ashamed of, not to put on a résumé, not to talk about casually with 'non-gamers' and such (I always put role playing games in my hobbies on my résumé - never stopped me from getting a job, quite the contrary, actually).

Quote from: Exploderwizard;564284The basic problem I've noticed in these parts about 3E & 4E is this:

Everyone wants to, or is willing to play but no one wants to run it.

My theory on why:

Introverted rules focus. The game world and adventures for the deck builder are merely a 2D scrolling scene against which they get to use their awesome kewl abilities.

I don't think that's necessarily true of 3e – 3e just takes a shitload of work to run – mostly, generating and tweaking NPCs and monsters. It's not that you "don't get to build a deck," it's that you have to build dozens of the fuckers.

Quote from: Phantom Black;564254"Jersey Shore: The Tool Playing Game (Master)"

Oh, what horrible mental imagery!
 
xD

Thank you for soiling my mind with this idea.

Asshole.