Quote from: PakaI'm with gleichman on this one.

I can play fast and loose when the group is up for it but I'd much rather be playing a game whose text is solid enough so that I can play it straight out of the book and have a rollicking good time with the rules backing our asses up.

"Fast and loose when the group is up for it" is the key thing here.  Because if the group is up for it, those ARE the rules.

Going back to the sports analogy, because I believe this is far closer than people realise. If you watch the NBA much you'll notice the "star treatment" for some players.  Roughly speaking for every year past 4 years in the league a player get's an extra 1/2 step before the refs call them for traveling. With bonuses for your media profile and the TV market size of the the city you play in. Micheal Jordan? Great player but on the backside of his career he was the Pushing Off King, using opponents like step ladders. It isn't something that is written down anywhere, it just gets called that way.

So thorough rules are really about social grease and being pro-active for having a smooth game.

Now if the rules are the GM has written the story prior and that's what is going to happen, dice be damned, well those are the rules.  They are arguable not rules for a game anymore. But those are the rules. It becomes like going to the theater, only the audience seats are on stage. Sadly the acting is usually really, really bad and the script is prone to be filled with the worst kind of self-indulgent wankery.

And hey, in spite of what your mother and your parish's minister has told you, a little wanking is just fine. But wankery is likely only going to work for you as long as long as you are on the same wanking wave length. Being a co-author of the wankery is going to increase those odds a lot.

Which is why the less input the player has the less likely they are to enjoy it. Pure GM wank often being painfully brutal to sit through. Especially if the player feels any connection to "their" character and the GM is wanking the character in a direction the player doesn't like. Think of the last really bad movie you saw, and then think about the fact that someone actually got PAID to write that, so they are "pros". That's right, "hacks" are a step or more above the vast majority of the public.

Quote from: David RFor some reason the term referee seems unpalatable to some. I think one of the reasons for this may be because the term reveals(betrays depending on your point of view)  what the whole concept of rpgs really is - a game.

Some(if not all games) have to be refereed. It's that simple.

I disagree. The idea of referee means, to me, that RPG is a sport. Sports need referees. I never had a referee in monopoly, Settlers of Catan, Civilization, Diplomacy, or Chess.

Now, when taking things to a professional level, say, Chess tournaments or playing poker in a casino as opposed to just with friends, a refereeing position is likely added.

So game [not equal to] referee.

Quote from: David RNot expecting in a good way i think. I'm in complete agreement with you.

Short debate. Can I claim da win!?

Quote from: David RI have never understood how people can say that rules are just guidelines and then go and piss in the soup of anybody who treats said guidelines/rules in a more concrete manner.

It's a self worth thing. Something the hobby has always had trouble with (rpgs are not exactly a well respected hobby).

Start with that as a grounding. Throw somebody into a bad game or even a game that isn't to their taste but with people who are really into that game. They get beat down more.

After that there's a tendency to strike out by saying you're better than they are. That you can play these games right.

Role-playing not Roll-playing!

And if you can wrap it up in grand theories and big words and talk about how other styles of games cause brain-damage, all the better.

Quote from: David RYeah, i understand where you are coming from. Things have changed over there, not for the better in my opinion, but since i have only been a lurker, said opinion doesn't really count.

Change of ownership. And then money entered the picture.

And being a lurker may well make your opinion more valid. No investment on your part.

Quote from: MaddmanSo I let her owe me an XP.

I do that, too, in D&D. (though with roughly up to 50 x level xp)

QuoteI'm not a dice fudger though.  

Me neither, because that's why we use dice, isn't it? It's like playing cards with a drunken player – you never know what he'll come up with, and you have to plan for it or adapt to it. It's part of the experience, the lure of a role-playing game to me.

Not sure what the ongoing debate is here at the moment, but I thought I'd jump in with my opinion of the original topic.

The DM has many roles, and like it or not, referee IS one of them. When things need resolving, he steps in with a ruling. He may or may not be fair and/or impartial, but he is still acting as a referee in that he's resolving conflict by interpreting the rules.

Often, the DM also finds himself in the position of refereeing the out of character interaction. That is, herding the players together to keep the game going, killing out of game chatter, organizing break times, etc.

Quote from: MaddmanI'm not a dice fudger though.  I've come to the conclusion that if you're fudging dice, it's because the system isn't doing what you want.  If you don't want the result that you're fudging, change the rule that gets you that result.

I don't really agree with this for my game. I occasionally fudge dice rolls, and when I do it's not that the system I'm using isn't doing what I want, it's the dice not doing what I want. Sometimes, I get on a roll and my dice have a hot streak. If that happens during a fight with some mooks who aren't important to the campaign, I'm not gonna whack some PCs over it usually. It really depends on the situation of course...poor choices will be punished....but if the players are playing their characters true and have good ideas, but my dice hit a hot streak at a really non-critical juncture, I'll fudge a bit.

As for clear rules, I'm definitely with gleichman. I like them well-defined. They can always be house-ruled for personal taste.

Quote from: SigmundI don't really agree with this for my game. I occasionally fudge dice rolls, and when I do it's not that the system I'm using isn't doing what I want, it's the dice not doing what I want.

And the rules are indicating that you need to use dice to resolve these conflicts.  That can be changed.

QuoteSometimes, I get on a roll and my dice have a hot streak. If that happens during a fight with some mooks who aren't important to the campaign, I'm not gonna whack some PCs over it usually. It really depends on the situation of course...poor choices will be punished....but if the players are playing their characters true and have good ideas, but my dice hit a hot streak at a really non-critical juncture, I'll fudge a bit.

So why not make a rule that says "PCs can't be killed by mooks"?  I mean I understand mooks, they are there to distract or slow down the PCs, or to let them show off all their cool powers before they get to the real fight.  Or institute some kind of Hero Points that players can use to make or eliminate blows when they think it's really important - let the players decide what is a critical juncture and what is important to them.  I mean maybe you don't like that kind of metagame rule, some folks don't.  Just explaining what I mean by the rule system failing.

QuoteAs for clear rules, I'm definitely with gleichman. I like them well-defined. They can always be house-ruled for personal taste.

Well I like clear rules of course.  I just don't feel overly bound to them.  I feel it's better to make a spot judgement, even if it turns out to be wrong, than to take time out of the game looking stuff up.  A perfect rule for this situation buried in a thousand pages of rules is worthless in-game.

Quote from: SigmundIf that happens during a fight with some mooks who aren't important to the campaign, I'm not gonna whack some PCs over it usually. It really depends on the situation of course...poor choices will be punished....but if the players are playing their characters true and have good ideas, but my dice hit a hot streak at a really non-critical juncture, I'll fudge a bit.

I never fudge dice. In fact I roll them out in the open, even going so far as to toss what could be a killing die roll across the table to land right in front of the player whose character is likely to be whacked.

Call me evil.

I think I can get away with this for two reasons.

First, I don't really have mooks. I have lesser threats, that's true. But the tradition of adventure I recreate in my games do not have the 'mooks = no danger' concept in them.

Second, the players enjoy it. When they recount their fondest memories of playing- it always includes one or more stories of being owned by these types of encounters.

Quote from: MaddmanA perfect rule for this situation buried in a thousand pages of rules is worthless in-game.

That's been my opinion for the last decade or so.  Back in high school and junior high, if a question came up, we'd pore over all the rule books.  Now, I'd rather have something right away that's 95% as good as what's in the book, to keep the momentum going.

I think part of what helped was playing CoC.  In many ways, the rules are quite lacking.  So you get in the habit of making reasonable approximations.  A moderately loud group is approaching, "Everyone, roll less than twice your listen %"

Quote from: MaddmanAnd the rules are indicating that you need to use dice to resolve these conflicts.  That can be changed.

It can, I just don't see the need. I want dice to resolve the conflicts, I just reserve the right to over-rule the dice if I feel the need.

QuoteSo why not make a rule that says "PCs can't be killed by mooks"?  I mean I understand mooks, they are there to distract or slow down the PCs, or to let them show off all their cool powers before they get to the real fight.  Or institute some kind of Hero Points that players can use to make or eliminate blows when they think it's really important - let the players decide what is a critical juncture and what is important to them.  I mean maybe you don't like that kind of metagame rule, some folks don't.  Just explaining what I mean by the rule system failing.

Because I want mooks to be able to kill the PCs sometimes, heck most of the time. However, there are certain situations where I want the PCs to succeed no matter what (BTW, it is not alway during combat either). If the players come up with a really great plan or idea that get's sabotaged by my rolling a 20 four times in a row (it happened once), then I will fudge a bit. On the other hand, I want combat, any combat, to be a potentially deadly affair, so I only fudge occasionally. Like I said though, I reserve that right when I GM.

As for hero point or the like, when I phase True20 in I'm counting on conviction to fulfill that role nicely.  

Quote from: MaddmanA perfect rule for this situation buried in a thousand pages of rules is worthless in-game.

A good index or table of contents combined with a decent memory makes a thousand pages insignificant.

If the game in question doesn't have a good index or table contents, than it starting off half broken to begin with (although a good memory can make up even for this).

Quote from: gleichmanA good index or table of contents combined with a decent memory makes a thousand pages insignificant.

Often, a given rule could be in two or three different sections, so checking and cross checking takes time, especially if the wording is very poor or the issue is not directly addressed.  It adds up to a decent chunk of time.  10-15 minutes out of a 4 hour session for one question is rarely worth it to me.

It's also very rare to have indexes that span multiple books.

Quote from: NicephorusOften, a given rule could be in two or three different sections, so checking and cross checking takes time, especially if the wording is very poor or the issue is not directly addressed.  It adds up to a decent chunk of time.  10-15 minutes out of a 4 hour session for one question is rarely worth it to me.

It's also very rare to have indexes that span multiple books.

I haven't spent 10 minutes looking up a rule in I don't know how long. In fact, other than grabbing a book for special vehicle damage tables in HERO I can't even remember the last time I went looking for a rule (in the middle of a game) on my own.

I can remember a few rare cases where a player challenged me on a rule and we turned to the book. Far far less than 10 minutes, but it was wasted time. I was right.

If you don't know your rules well enough to avoid those 10-15 minute look ups, and you've played that game for any length of time, and you feel that you have to fudge the rules to continue play...

... you are playing the wrong game. Get a easier one.

Quote from: gleichmanIf you don't know your rules well enough to avoid those 10-15 minute look ups, and you've played that game for any length of time, and you feel that you have to fudge the rules to continue play...

... you are playing the wrong game. Get a easier one.

We agree completely, and it's what I've done.  :heh:

Quote from: MaddmanWe agree completely, and it's what I've done.  :heh:

So how is tic-tac-toe working for you? :heh:


Note: Pure Jest here