Let me try and inject a little signal into the noise.

Something I've been musing about a fair bit over the last little while is how unlike RPGs are from any other medium, including the ones that they take inspiration from and evolved from.

Now, medium matters; you can't watch a film adaptation of a novel without noticing that.  While RPGs may have started out as a sort of single unit tactical wargame that assumed the use of miniatures and battlemaps[1], that certainly isn't the case any more.  I've seen Champions, a game that explicitly requires hex grids and minis, played without any physical tokens.

John Morrow's right: GMs make a lousy UI for precise spatial information transfer.  Visual representations are always going to be objectively better at conferring spatial information.  That's just the way it is; we're a visual species.  But I honestly think part of that is that as a hobby, we're trying to transfer the wrong kind of information through that interface.  RPGs in practice are a lot more like cooperative improvisational oral storytelling, yet I rarely see any RPGs try to bring techniques from the field of storytelling or oral history into the GM's toolbox. (One of the things that frustrates me most about the story games scene is the use of the phrase "framing the scene".  You're not framing the scene because there is no scene.  You're not actually looking at anything.)


[1] Shut up, Benoist.

Quote from: gleichman;546096I find this exceedingly difficult to believe (as in it actually happens and is accepted by the players), but I'll take you at your word.

I am very clear with my players about how I will run the game and how I will make decisions. If something like this comes up from an NPC's side, I explain to the player what is going on mechanically and why before I make the roll. So far I haven't had any objections.

QuoteSome people can be talked in to accepting just about anything. And getting whacked by something they had no idea was even possible in the game ranks as insignification compared to many real events.

My players just understand there are things that can happen in real life the game mechanics of a system don't always cover very well. They know I am not out to get them. But if something unusual arises they expect me to come up with a ruling that makes sense and doesn't hand wave it out of existence.

Also, you have to understand these are people I know and game with all the time. They have a sense of what I am likely to allow or not, and what sorts of things outside the rules I will be likely to incorporate.

As a GM one of my strengths is I am good about knowing the limits of my own knowledge and more than happy to draw on the expertise of people at the table when that falls short.

But I am also developing stuff for publication at the table as well, so I want these sorts of things to come up and I want a certain amount of experimentation. Lots of times I will come up with a new mechanic and explain it to the players, telling them it will probably feature in the game so I can test it out.

Quote from: gleichman;546046This thread started with nothing but a dog pile whacking on the phrase "Mother-My-I" in a way that clearly showed that people had no understanding of what the phrase meant.

It couldn't have gone downhill from that starting point.

Yes it could and it did.

Pat yourself on the back.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546098Changing it to mean something else just so you have an excuse to be more hostile is weak sauce.

From the other side of the fence (i.e. a different gaming style then yours) I consider these terms to be insulting and hostile:

"Ruling Not Rules"
"Role-playing Not Roll-Playing"
"Role-playing Not War-gaming"


I hear them all the time.

So get used to having your style described as "Mother-My-I", it at least has the virtue of being more true than second and third one in my list above.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546098I know exactly what it means.  It's from a children's game where the "children" cannot move or do anything without asking permission from the "mother" first.

There is no reasonable reason why it should ever be used in RPGs unless you're trying to be a dick and use hyperbole to attack another playstyle, rather than use legitimate arguments.

Changing it to mean something else just so you have an excuse to be more hostile is weak sauce.

Exactly this. It is a loaded term used to shame people out of their prefered style of play. There is a lot of this going around on all sides these days.

Quote from: daniel_ream;546100RPGs in practice are a lot more like cooperative improvisational oral storytelling, yet I rarely see any RPGs try to bring techniques from the field of storytelling or oral history into the GM's toolbox. (One of the things that frustrates me most about the story games scene is the use of the phrase "framing the scene".  You're not framing the scene because there is no scene.  You're not actually looking at anything.)

Looking at what RPGs do that's not like other media, and then trying to make them function more like these other media because that rubs your sensibilities the wrong way. That's an awesome idea, man. Really awesome. And it totally has never ever been tried before. :rolleyes:

:forge:

Quote from: gleichman;546104From the other side of the fence (i.e. a different gaming style then yours) I consider these terms to be insulting and hostile:

"Ruling Not Rules"
"Role-playing Not Roll-Playing"
"Role-playing Not War-gaming"


I hear them all the time.

So get used to having your style described as "Mother-My-I", it at least has the virtue of being more true than second and third one in my list above.

Yeah...the big difference is none of the above is classifying players as children who can't do anything for themselves.  If you seriously can't see the difference than I'm sorry, because it's a VAST difference.

Yes BedrockBrendan, I'm aware that your group accepts such ruling from you. I'm not trying to say they don't.

I'm trying to say that others wouldn't, and they'd see your game as little more than "Mother-May-I" in dress up.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546102But I am also developing stuff for publication at the table as well, so I want these sorts of things to come up and I want a certain amount of experimentation. Lots of times I will come up with a new mechanic and explain it to the players, telling them it will probably feature in the game so I can test it out.

A rather special case, with respect to suggested changes/additions to the rules- I do much the same.

Quote from: gleichman;546108Yes BedrockBrendan, I'm aware that your group accepts such ruling from you. I'm not trying to say they don't.

I'm trying to say that others wouldn't, and they'd see your game as little more than "Mother-May-I" in dress up.

I am sure some might. Every group is different. But as I said I always adapt to my group and will not force my style on players who want to stick 100% to the rules. So far though, playing in multiple gaming groups over the years, I haven't really run into any problems. In fact I have encountered more problems from the opposite end of things (players who felt I was not allowing them to take enough special actions outside the rules), than from people representing your point of view.

QuoteA rather special case, with respect to suggested changes/additions to the rules- I do much the same.

It isn't any different from the longstanding tradition of houseruling systems at the table. I know several GMs, who have no interest or intention of publishing their material, who amass books of houserules for things like D&D.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;546107Yeah...the big difference is none of the above is classifying players as children who can't do anything for themselves.  If you seriously can't see the difference than I'm sorry, because it's a VAST difference.

Whenever you have to ask the GM's permission for something, you're in the role of child asking his mother for something.

"May I have a glass of milk?" is in concept indentical to "Can I get something special from throwing sand in his eyes?" A call to the judgement of Mother because *you are unable to determine the answer yourself*.


I should note here that huge chucks of my own fantasy game is "Mother-May-I" as anyone who followed my link to Layers of Design should know. I really don't consider it a bad thing. It's a justified label.

My personal style however is to exclude Mother-May-I from combat. I don't in fact think less of people with a different style (although I will not game with them- but that's for the benefit of both sides).

At least his retarded view only ruins this thread instead of the entire forum.  I am actually frustrated at Brendan right now because all he's doing is giving Gleichman a chance to keep repeating the same retarded shit and prove he neither listens to anybody or actually plays actual rpg's as generally defined by the vast majority.

Quote from: gleichman;546113Whenever you have to ask the GM's permission for something, you're in the role of child asking his mother for something.

"May I have a glass of milk?" is in concept indentical to "Can I get something special from throwing sand in his eyes?" A call to the judgement of Mother because *you are unable to determine the answer yourself*.

es).

Not at all. The GM is only given such authority when the group trusts his abillity to adjudicate. You are not a child asking for milk because you andthe GM are both adults at the table and you can raise objections whenever you like. It is more analagous to a referee than a mother.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546112I am sure some might. Every group is different. But as I said I always adapt to my group and will not force my style on players who want to stick 100% to the rules. So far though, playing in multiple gaming groups over the years, I haven't really run into any problems. In fact I have encountered more problems from the opposite end of things (players who felt I was not allowing them to take enough special actions outside the rules), than from people representing your point of view..

And my experience from the other side the fence matches your. Never a problem.

Which likely means that we have different styles that are both valid for some people (something I never claimed to be otherwise) and not others. And we find people to join our groups who have similar styles.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546112It isn't any different from the longstanding tradition of houseruling systems at the table. I know several GMs, who have no interest or intention of publishing their material, who amass books of houserules for things like D&D.

I like house rules, but fault gamers for saying they're playing game X when after the addition of all their house rules there have long since stopped playing game X and are now playing game Y.

Unless they make this (i.e. extensive house ruling) clear, they are in effect lying when they say that they're playing D&D or whatever the game is in question.

Quote from: gleichman;546120And my experience from the other side the fence matches your. Never a problem.

Which likely means that we have different styles that are both valid for some people (something I never claimed to be otherwise) and not others. And we find people to join our groups who have similar styles.

This is pretty much all I have been trying to say.

QuoteI like house rules, but fault gamers for saying they're playing game X when after the addition of all their house rules there have long since stopped playing game X and are now playing game Y.

Unless they make this (i.e. extensive house ruling) clear, they are in effect lying when they say that they're playing D&D or whatever the game is in question.

with all due respect this seems a bit pedandic and harsh. I mean if a group houserules that you can use CON or STR to modify intimidate in 3E, should I call them "liars" when they ask me to join their game of "D&D". House rules are an longstanding tradition in the game. As long as i can recognize the basic shaoe of the system I am prepared to say it is still D&D. Now if they did something crazy like get rid of vancian casting and give every class special encounter and daily powers, you might have a point:)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546118Not at all. The GM is only given such authority when the group trusts his abillity to adjudicate.

A child may or may not trust his mother, it matters not. It still must ask permission.

The same with the player and his GM. Only unlike the child he is free to leave the gaming group or not join it in the first place. The reason to stay is solely determine by if they enjoy asking permission or not.


In short:  Do the players enjoy playing the GM more than playing the Game