TheRPGSite

Quote from: RPGPunditThe other side of this understanding is that the players do not have the authority to overrule or make demands on the GM.

Quote from: RPGPunditIt's like if the Ref starts kicking the ball and trying to score goals.

But you think that's okay, right?  After all, the players don't have the authority to make demands on the DM.  If he feels like kicking the ball around and scoring goals, the players just have to like it or lump it.

Or am I misunderstanding your position?



Cheers,
Roger

Personally, I really dislike the analogy of GM as referee.  RPGs are not a sport.  Analogies to cars, board games, theatre plays, and other forums dont' really work either.  RPGs are not *like* anything.  They really are their own monster.  It's why explaining it to someone who has never gamed is so diffucult.

"Well, it's like a board game, with no board and no pieces.  Unless you want them."
"No, it's like a play, only there's no script and no one dresses up and there's no audience."
"No, it's really like improvisational theatre.  With double-entry accounting."

But let that person play for five minutes and they'll see exactly what you're talking about.

I don't think the GM should be an impartial referee.  He should be very engaged with what is going on, taking an active hand to keep the action moving.  At the same time, he shouldn't try to take over the players' agency.  His goal isn't a story teller, but a story facilitator.  He sets up an interesting area, introduces conflict, then sees what the players will do with it.  While I'm an advocate of the GM taking a strong hand in the pacing of the game, I'm an equally strong advocate of trusting your players and leaving the end of the story up to them.

And before anyone accuses me of 'one true wayism', this is just how I'm doing it these days.  Other ways may work for other people, this works for me.

I don't know his position Roger, but I can reconcile those two into one coherent view.

To put it into a US law analogy: the Supreme Court can overrule Congress and the Senate. But only if it does so by following the rules.  They can't just make up stuff, they have to follow the US Constitution.

Quote from: blakkieI don't know his position, but I can reconcile those two into one coherent view.

To put it into a US law analogy: the Supreme Court can overrule Congress and the Senate. But only if it does so by following the rules.  They can't just make up stuff, they have to follow the US Constitution.

Comedy Gold :p

Quote from: MaddmanI don't think the GM should be an impartial referee.  He should be very engaged with what is going on, taking an active hand to keep the action moving.  At the same time, he shouldn't try to take over the players' agency.  His goal isn't a story teller, but a story facilitator.  He sets up an interesting area, introduces conflict, then sees what the players will do with it.  While I'm an advocate of the GM taking a strong hand in the pacing of the game, I'm an equally strong advocate of trusting your players and leaving the end of the story up to them.

Methinks the problem is you don't understand what a refree actually does.  Pro sports on TV? That refree is managing and helping set the tone of that game. He is very engaged. He is doing those very things.

EDIT: ...and if he's really good he'll pull off the Greatest Trick and you'll believe he doesn't exist.

Quote from: MaddmanComedy Gold :p

In what way?  Sometimes their judgements are more in spirit and not literal letter. Such allows a centuries old document to remain relavent. But the Constitution (and Bill of Rights and precedent) is the basis of their authority and they are confined by it.

The problem, for me, with the referee analogy is that you need some kind of competition, too. The DM provides the challenge, i.e. the antagonists, as well as overseeing the game. The only way a DM could only be a referee is if some players take over antagonistic roles, and you'd end an adventure (or campaign) by declaring who won, or if there was a tie.

And that's not very similar to RPGs, nor would that be extremely succesful if the group didn't manage to get a halfway balanced scoring history (i.e. not alway the same group losing/winning), which would probably necessitate for the DM to give up an impartial position anyway.

"referee" to me is mostly a crutch to explain that the DM has control over the rules of the game and their implementation, as well as final say over task resolution, success and failure.

Quote from: blakkieIn what way?  Sometimes their judgements are more in spirit and not literal letter. Such allows a centuries old document to remain relavent. But the Constitution (and Bill of Rights and precedent) is the basis of their authority and they are confined by it.

Just a joke, in that many people feel the court has interpreted broadly enough to be considered just making shit up.  Not trying for a political derail or anything.

Quote from: blakkieMethinks the problem is you don't understand what a refree actually does.  Pro sports on TV? That refree is managing and helping set the tone of that game. He is very engaged. He is doing those very things.

He's right about this.  If you are into baseball think about how different umps handle things differently, and how the strike zone seems to widen when one team is up 10 run, or he is less lenient in a ruling if there are lots of hits batsmen, etc. . .

The ref not only reinforces the rules, but helps set the tone of the game and keep it moving - or can slow it down if it is getting too wild.

Quote from: el-remmenHe's right about this.  If you are into baseball think about how different umps handle things differently, and how the strike zone seems to widen when one team is up 10 run, or he is less lenient in a ruling if there are lots of hits batsmen, etc. . .

The ref not only reinforces the rules, but helps set the tone of the game and keep it moving - or can slow it down if it is getting too wild.

The only sport I watch is football, and not much of that.  There the refs primarily serve as someone for the fans to blame when their team starts sucking ass.  :p

I'll confess to not being much of a sports guy.

I think the "referee" moniker comes from the Chainmail days, where you really did have players opposing each other.  The guy monitoring the rules was the referee.
 
When you define the referee as the "arbiter of rules", I think GM == referee.
 
The subtlety is in how those ever-evolving rules are regarded by and presented to the players.  The GM, ultimately, is (and should be, IMO) the last stop on how a rule is handled at "his" table.  However, that is only part of his job.  His real job is to help everyone involved have fun.  And, really, the rules impact that, so they are in his court.
 
I may be having corporate Turette's, but I think "facilitator" is a better term for the GM.  "Referee" isn't inaccurate, though.  It's merely incomplete.

Quote from: el-remmenHe's right about this.  If you are into baseball think about how different umps handle things differently, and how the strike zone seems to widen when one team is up 10 run, or he is less lenient in a ruling if there are lots of hits batsmen, etc. . .

And then there are those times when the ump decides the game is boring and onesided so he adds a gorilla to one team and declares that all of the outfielders on the other team are suffering from blindness.  Then just for kicks, he decides that the winner gets the mayor's daughter.

A sports referee is not even remotely similar to a GM.  Change refs and you get maybe a 2% difference in the game and the overall outcome will be different only in very close games.  Change GMs and the game changes vastly.  Refs can interpret rules differently, GMs can throw out or rewrite whole sections of the rules.

The only games where GMs are remotely like a ref is in extreme Gygaxian play style where the world is laid out, and the DM reads out what happens at various times without regard to pacing, plot, or player fun.

Quote from: NicephorusThe only games where GMs are remotely like a ref is in extreme Gygaxian play style where the world is laid out, and the DM reads out what happens at various times without regard to pacing, plot, or player fun.

Exactly.  A ref is there to make a fair game, and is rather unconcerned about making it an interesting one.  A good GM tries to make the game interesting and engaging.

Quote from: NicephorusThe only games where GMs are remotely like a ref is in extreme Gygaxian play style where the world is laid out, and the DM reads out what happens at various times without regard to pacing, plot, or player fun.

And yet I've never heard complaints from the grognards who actually *played* with Gygax.  I suspect his style just doesn't translate well to other DMs.

Quote from: CyberzombieAnd yet I've never heard complaints from the grognards who actually *played* with Gygax.  I suspect his style just doesn't translate well to other DMs.

There is more myth than fact about Mr. Gygax.

I found him to be reasoned and intelligent, and more than willing to carry on an lengthy exchange with a nobody like me. Not some raving dice throwing  fanatical dictator as he's often protrayed.

I think he and I share a fault. Our very method of writing rubs people the wrong way.

Quote from: MaddmanJust a joke, in that many people feel the court has interpreted broadly enough to be considered just making shit up.  Not trying for a political derail or anything.

You would do well to see those expressions of feeling often more sour grapes, polticing, and/or disagreement with some given current ruling.

Quote from: MaddmanThe only sport I watch is football, and not much of that.  There the refs primarily serve as someone for the fans to blame when their team starts sucking ass.  :p

I'll confess to not being much of a sports guy.

Then they have performed the Greatest Trick on you. Although that isn't surprising given how good the NFL refereeing is and how well the league image has been managed. In the NFL it's easier to see if you include the referee management as part of the refereeing.

On the subject of this thread. I'm quite happy being referenced as the Referee although GM is more commonly used.

I think one's like or distain for the term is nothing more than indication of where on the Pundit/Swine ladder you are. In short, the word isn't really what the debate is over. It's still all about the style of play.

Quote from: gleichmanOn the subject of this thread. I'm quite happy being referenced as the Referee although GM is more commonly used.

I think one's like or distain for the term is nothing more than indication of where on the Pundit/Swine ladder you are. In short, the word isn't really what the debate is over. It's still all about the style of play.

Quoted for truth.

Quote from: gleichmanI think one's like or distain for the term is nothing more than indication of where on the Pundit/Swine ladder you are. In short, the word isn't really what the debate is over. It's still all about the style of play.

I have no disdain for the word.  I just think that comparing a gm/referee to a sports referee is a poor analogy.

And I wouldn't refer too much to a pundit/swine ladder as if it's a real thing.  That would give the impression that play style varies unidimensionally.

Quote from: NicephorusI have no disdain for the word.  I just think that comparing a gm/referee to a sports referee is a poor analogy.

I was intending 'disdain' in that usage to mean... well disdain for using the term referee in that usage. Not distain for the world referee itself.

Or basically "referee is a poor analogy".

Quote from: NicephorusAnd I wouldn't refer too much to a pundit/swine ladder as if it's a real thing.  That would give the impression that play style varies unidimensionally.

GNS and GDS claims it a 2D triangle :)

More seriously, at this point we are speaking of a unidimensional disagreement (referee = good, referee = bad) that I'm willing to bet strongly breaks along Pundit/Swine lines.

I could be wrong, and that would be interesting too.

If I was running an Amber game (which would require a functional set of rules, but that's another rant entirely), then I'd be a referee.  The players are in direct competition with each other, so a lot of my work would be refereeing their conflicts.

If I'm running a normal D&D game, though, I'm not refereeing.  It's them against my monsters.

Referee, to me, requires that there be a conflict between two or more actual human beings.  The game system or setting is irrelevent.  So, while DMing can involve that, it doesn't have to.

Quote from: CyberzombieIf I was running an Amber game (which would require a functional set of rules, but that's another rant entirely), then I'd be a referee.  The players are in direct competition with each other, so a lot of my work would be refereeing their conflicts.

If I'm running a normal D&D game, though, I'm not refereeing.  It's them against my monsters.

Referee, to me, requires that there be a conflict between two or more actual human beings.  The game system or setting is irrelevent.  So, while DMing can involve that, it doesn't have to.

SWINE!

Change his color!  Change his color!

Quote from: CyberzombieIf I'm running a normal D&D game, though, I'm not refereeing.  It's them against my monsters.

Do you consider it a loss when your monsters are defeated and a win when the PC are?

Quote from: MaddmanSWINE!

Change his color!  Change his color!

Down swine boy! :stick:

You'd think someone tossed feed into the trough...

Quote from: gleichmanDo you consider it a loss when your monsters are defeated and a win when the PC are?

Nope.  The monsters are *there* to be defeated.  Or for the players to figure out that they're out of their league.  I try to make it challenging -- no point in playing if it isn't -- but I like heroic fantasy, so I want heroes who win in the end.

One opinion on terminology doesn't make me a damn swine, though.  :yell:

I think it is a matter of semantics.  I have no problem being referred to as a RPG's "ref".  

I adjudicate and keep things "fair" (whatever that happens to mean in the particular style of play) and facilitate the rules.

Quote from: CyberzombieNope.  The monsters are *there* to be defeated.  Or for the players to figure out that they're out of their league.  I try to make it challenging -- no point in playing if it isn't -- but I like heroic fantasy, so I want heroes who win in the end.

So, since you aren't playing to defeat the PCs- what you are in effect doing is making sure the rules are followed and (as best you can) insuring that the match in challenging.

Thus you are refereeing a conflict between them and the Monsters.

It's the traditional meaning of the term as used in rpgs to explain the odd character of the conflicts between PCs and GM controlled monsters.

Quote from: gleichmanSo, since you aren't playing to defeat the PCs- what you are in effect doing is making sure the rules are followed and (as best you can) insuring that the match in challenging.

Thus you are refereeing a conflict between them and the Monsters.

It's the traditional meaning of the term as used in rpgs to explain the odd character of the conflicts between PCs and GM controlled monsters.

I can see that, by your definition.  I don't think of refereeing that way.  So we're both right, by our own definitions.  :)

There is a certain truth to your definition, though.  I am there to make things challenging (hopefully; I'm kind of a pushover DM) and interesting for the players.

Quote from: CyberzombieI can see that, by your definition.  I don't think of refereeing that way.  So we're both right, by our own definitions.  :)

Well I can't help it if you refuse to use the term in the proper ancient meaning as put down in the holy texts from the 70s :)

Quote from: CyberzombieThere is a certain truth to your definition, though.  I am there to make things challenging (hopefully; I'm kind of a pushover DM) and interesting for the players.

The idea of playing a game to entertain and challenge rather than defeat was seen as something very new back in the beginning of the hobby. After all, this was the high water mark of the wargame era from which rpgs grew.

The concept was key to a RPG as it wouldn't work otherwise. If you go back, you'll see how they fumbled to explain it.

Quote from: gleichmanWell I can't help it if you refuse to use the term in the proper ancient meaning as put down in the holy texts from the 70s :)

There I go again, not paying attention to the holy texts.  :deviousgrin:

Quote from: gleichmanThe idea of playing a game to entertain and challenge rather than defeat was seen as something very new back in the beginning of the hobby. After all, this was the high water mark of the wargame era from which rpgs grew.

The concept was key to a RPG as it wouldn't work otherwise. If you go back, you'll see how they fumbled to explain it.

Definitely.  Your position is clear to me now, and that's actually a pretty darn good way to look at things.  :bow:

For 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. Now, lets take rpgs. Now everybody at the table plays the game. But there are two distinct roles. Those who play in the game as characters who interact with the world,which may include role playing, combat etc and the person who controls all the non-player characters, and sets up obstacles and challenges.

The GM does not play the game as the players do. The focus is different.  The fact is that the GM is not really an impartial arbitrator of the game, simply because creating fun for all sometimes means setting up events which to an impartial observer would seem unfair, but is part and parcel of the drama of the game. The gm is not one of the players, and i think the problem here is that sometimes gms make the mistake of thinking that they are playing the game with the players....that they are part of the group. This is not the case.

When your role in the game gives you the kind of power, that is beyond the range of the other players - and this may sound harsh - it means that you are never going to be able to play the adventure as how the players would. That is the nature of the game and the role of the gm in said game.

Now we may call ourselves gms, the fifth business, moderators, etc but i think what best defines what we do in terms of the actual game is to referee.
Don't get me wrong, we each have our own different styles, but what it all comes down  to at the end of the day, when you strip away all the stuff about entertaining the players, injecting themes into the game, creating drama etc, what the players realise is this - You as the gm make the final call - so what is it, boss? Or at least, this is how it is in my games.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RThe fact is that the GM is not really an impartial arbitrator of the game, simply because creating fun for all sometimes means setting up events which to an impartial observer would seem unfair, but is part and parcel of the drama of the game.

Okay this part, what i am trying to say is that on the whole, the gm is impartial, just like a referee, but his role is more complex. Sometimes to entertain the players, the gm has to make decisions in terms of plot developments and combat, which may  not seem impartial to an observer. Sorry about that.

Regards,
David R.

When I think of referee I think of soccer, an official who has the ability to say someone is playing incorrectly and if need be, kick them out of the game.  That is not the power dynamic I want with or as a GM.  I want to do the job of the GM in the book, not be some kind of god-emperor of imaginary shit.

That is not to say I don't strive to be a leader at my table but I'm a leader when I play and don't GM too.  Leader in that I strive to add fun shit to the mix and help folks out.

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.

RPGPundit having said it likely doesn't help. ;)

In the case of Maddman it seems more related to him not quite understanding what [sports] referees actually do.  Maybe RPGPundit doesn't either, but those two quotes of his statements at the start of thread do not oppose each other. So he likely has at least a bit of a grasp.

Then there is the problem of people focusing on the part of sports that sometimes, but not always, doesn't match up with RPG P&P play. That being different competing human opponents/teams. I think at least one person in here took that angle.

Which is alway an issue with analogies. Risk of over interpreting or misinterpreting. Because one thing just isn't the other, and not understanding what is different and what is the same.

Quote from: PakaWhen I think of referee I think of soccer, an official who has the ability to say someone is playing incorrectly and if need be, kick them out of the game. That is not the power dynamic I want with or as a GM. I want to do the job of the GM in the book, not be some kind of god-emperor of imaginary shit.

If another RPG player kicks me in the groin with cleats I would like -someone- to toss him out. :)

But really it is the rules that say a player is ejected from a football match, rules that all the players and the referee agreed to function under before the match. The referee is just implementing the rules, applying them using their best judgement of what they saw happen.

Perhaps something else that bothers people about the idea of a referee is again with the indirect association with sports and that sports are often using heavily codified rules.  Perhaps RPGPundit intended this. *shrug*  But in truth we all enter games with quite a lot of rules, even if those rules aren't written down. Not having written down rules is fine, as long as everyone is running off very similar sets of rules (and intepretations there-of). If the set of rules differ then you're going to have to work hard to straighten that all out eventually.

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.

Interesting observation.

Quote from: blakkieIf another RPG player kicks me in the groin with cleats I would like -someone- to toss him out. :)

But really it is the rules that say a player is ejected from a football match, rules that all the players and the referee agreed to function under before the match. The referee is just implementing the rules, applying them using their best judgement of what they saw happen.

Now that is turning me around on it.

Eh, I'm more than willing to write it off to RPG internet semantics and game on.

Quote from: PakaEh, I'm more than willing to write it off to RPG internet semantics and game on.

Very true.

As to the question of power dynamics during play, I have posted some stuff on my mind in another thread - the gist of it, that power in the game is an extremely fluid concept, passing between gm and player.

I too am uncomfortable with the sports angle in this discussion. Simply because there are aspects of being a gm that far exceed what a referee does in his role in many games. Having said that however, and using the analogy myself(although with no mention of specific sports) i think that at it's core, when dealing with only the rules part of the game the referee analogy is pretty sound.

As far as the other resposibilities of a gm - beyond the rules aspect - something more appropiate than a sports analogy should be used. But as is, when discussing RPGs in general - and let's face it - the rules are the most obvious aspect of the whole rpg concept, then i think the referee analogy is a pretty safe comparison.

But just a short detour , with regards to the rules - "there are more like guidelines " - savvy?

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RBut just a short detour , with regards to the rules - "there are more like guidelines " - savvy?

Never have agreed with that.

Quote from: gleichmanNever have agreed with that.

Gleichman, one of these days, we will have to have a discussion about this very subject. Something tells me it would be a very interesting discussion. Back in the day when i used to read your post at RPGnet (you don't seem to post much these days), I found myself not really agreeing with you, but i dug the way you articulated your points. I am not in the same league, but i think i can keep up. But then again maybe not.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RGleichman, one of these days, we will have to have a discussion about this very subject. Something tells me it would be a very interesting discussion. Back in the day when i used to read your post at RPGnet (you don't seem to post much these days), I found myself not really agreeing with you, but i dug the way you articulated your points. I am not in the same league, but i think i can keep up. But then again maybe not.

I wouldn't mind.

I should note however that I have nothing against groups that play fast and loose with the rules. It's their game and they may play it as they wish. So the debate may not be what you expect.

I do however have a issue with those who claim that this is a better way of playing and that anyone who doesn't raft that river is a bad player. I've had it hammered at me time and time again, to the point where it's a bit of sore tooth. So I tend to knee-jerk and point out that I don't agree whenever the subject comes up.



As for RPGNet, good times.

But on principle I don't post at sites with Moderation. I left when it was first enacted there and came back when it appeared that it was guided by a very light hand. That was a mistake. Over time things went as they do, and the moderation now became more than I accept. So I left again. Won't go back until policy changes.

To be honest, I don't think it will. It's not a place that allows open debate, but it really can't be. They have a number of designers and other industry names there (if small names) and those people are draws for others to come to that site. Thus they are protected, and protected in a very one-sided manner.

So I understand how they got to where they are.



I showed up here only because in a rare visit to RPG sites on the Internet it was recommend to me as an site where you could speak freely. Not completely true (although the allowed range is impressive), but it's still moderated. One of the reasons I won't be here long.

Quote from: gleichmanI wouldn't mind.

I should note however that I have nothing against groups that play fast and loose with the rules. It's their game and they may play it as they wish. So the debate may not be what you expect.

I do however have a issue with those who claim that this is a better way of playing and that anyone who doesn't raft that river is a bad player. I've had it hammered at me time and time again, to the point where it's a bit of sore tooth. So I tend to knee-jerk and point out that I don't agree whenever the subject comes up.

I'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.

QuoteI wouldn't mind.

I should note however that I have nothing against groups that play fast and loose with the rules. It's their game and they may play it as they wish. So the debate may not be what you expect.

Not expecting in a good way i think. I'm in complete agreement with you.

QuoteI do however have a issue with those who claim that this is a better way of playing and that anyone who doesn't raft that river is a bad player. I've had it hammered at me time and time again, to the point where it's a bit of sore tooth. So I tend to knee-jerk and point out that I don't agree whenever the subject comes up.[/QUOTE

I 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. I mean guidelines/rules is all about what works for your crew and you.

My current crew likes things set in stone. They don't like fudging with the dice or rules and they really respect the whole let dice fall where they may ethos. Coming from a group and history with a lot more looser way of doing things, i've had to adjust. And guess what? I'm having the time of my life.

I think once you get set in your ways and discount the possibility of any other way then the way you game and have enjoyed for such a long time, you are denying yourself from some truly new gaming experience. Yeah i know, strange - i'm talking about guidelines, but my gaming holds rules as paramount.

QuoteAs for RPGNet, good times.

But on principle I don't post at sites with Moderation. I left when it was first enacted there and came back when it appeared that it was guided by a very light hand. That was a mistake. Over time things went as they do, and the moderation now became more than I accept. So I left again. Won't go back until policy changes.

To be honest, I don't think it will. It's not a place that allows open debate, but it really can't be. They have a number of designers and other industry names there (if small names) and those people are draws for others to come to that site. Thus they are protected, and protected in a very one-sided manner.

So I understand how they got to where they are.



I showed up here only because in a rare visit to RPG sites on the Internet it was recommend to me as an site where you could speak freely. Not completely true (although the allowed range is impressive), but it's still moderated. One of the reasons I won't be here long

Yeah, 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.

Regards,
David R.

QuoteMy current crew likes things set in stone. They don't like fudging with the dice or rules and they really respect the whole let dice fall where they may. Coming from a group and history with a lot more looser way of doing things, i've had to adjust. And guess what? I'm having the time of my life.

This has been exactly my experience.  I'm a big "by the book" player now.  I don't mind changing the rules but only well before play, publically to everyone, and in a well-thought-out manner.

yrs--
--Ben

I'm a fast and loose sort of guy, which may be why the referee analogy doesn't work for me.  The referee is expected to enforce the rules.  When I GM I emphasize that to me there is no book of rules, just a book of suggestions.  The only part I take as a capital-R Rule is the central mechanic.  Stat + Skill vs TN or dicepools or whatever, and I'll figure out the rest when we need it.

And this works for my players.  Even the old vets have said they've intentionally not gotten into the rulebooks because it's more fun for them to not really know much about the system.  They know if you want to do something, roll your stat plus skill, ask me if there's any modifiers, and tell me your successes.  As a recent example of playing loose and fast with the rules, one of the PCs got sucked into a demon dimension.  The beginner witch said she was delving deeper into magic than she'd ever gone before trying to find a way to get him back.  She thought this was a good reason to raise her Sorcery but was 1 short.  So I let her owe me an XP.

I'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've played close to the rules, and if I'm running someting grittier I will.  I don't think there's a right way to do it, there's all different kinds of fun.

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

Quote from: gleichmanI 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.

Again with gleichman.

Rolling in front of the players creates a tension and a risk that is just awesome to behold.

If the players think the conflict is important enough to draw steel, let 'em pay the steel price should things not go their way.

And I play with some brutal systems.  Burning Wheel, Riddle of Steel and Sorcerer aren't kind to those who lose combats but there's always the option to take the PC away when they fall unconscious.

There are worse things than death and what's more important:

There are more interesting things than death too.

Quote from: gleichmanSo how is tic-tac-toe working for you? :heh:

My main complaint with the system is that whoever wins initiative has a serious tactical advantage... which may not sound too bad, until you realize that initiative is determined in a completely arbitrary manner.

Clearly, the rule system is broken!  Broken, I say!  ;)

Quote from: SigmundIt 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 understand that sentiment, punishing players for something. Most of the times, they're not trying to be "stupid", they're just doing things the DM didn't anticipate. Or they're choosing "poorly" because they lack or missed certain information, or maybe they're just not as good at strategic thinking as the DM thought they were.

And if they're clearly trying to test the boundaries, then it's better to go out of game and tell them clearly that what they're doing isn't fun for you. But grudge play, to me, always is a bad idea.

And that doesn't even touch upon the fact that a player might play a character who, some time of the other, makes poor choices.

Quote from: SigmundHowever, 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.

Question: If you want the PCs to succeed no matter what – then why do you roll the dice? Why not say "Guys, this is an awesome plan. It works perfectly."

When I roll the dice, there is always the chance for failure or success, no matter how unlikely. But if a player does something so out of the box that I really have to reward him, I let the action succeed, without rolling. That's not what the dice are for, to me.

Quote from: Technicolor DreamcoatSo game [not equal to] referee.

I think the word sport is also included within the definition of the word game - or at least it says so in the Oxford dictionary.:)

But yeah, i dig the spirit it which you were saying it. RPGs do feel more like a sport when played and thus the term referee seems appropiate when descibing the gm's role in the rules aspect, but i think when describing the endevour(rpgs) in general, game is the proper term to use.

Regards,
David R.

Technicolor Dreamcoat, sorry the above, is further clarification of my position,brought upon by the distinction you made between the words game and sport. sorry if it reads otherwise.

Quote from: gleichmanShort debate. Can I claim da win!? :)

Go for it. And also add bonus points for describing the general whole self worth issue. But as a caveat, i think this problem affects both sides of the whole role/roll gamer public.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RGo for it. And also add bonus points for describing the general whole self worth issue. But as a caveat, i think this problem affects both sides of the whole role/roll gamer public.

Regards,
David R.

I certainly agree with you about it affecting both sides. The conflict is so deep and has lasted so long, that it is nearly impossible to step away from completely.

I think the best solution is a simple parting of the ways. And I think we're seeing that online.

As for the whole dice fudging issue. Okay, When i say i used to play in a more fast and loose manner, fudging dice was not exactly what i was talking about. I mean, yeah sure, i may have fudged dice roles or even allowed the players to reroll the dice on occasion but that was not the norm.

What i was talking about when i said fast and loose with the rules, i meant that sometimes i skipped certain rules in the heat of the moment, you know jumped a couple of steps. this varied depending on the system, but generally if we thought it hampered the pace of the game, esp the combat, we just skipped.

Modifying rules and such is a whole other issue. It's been my experience that you have to be really familiar with what the system does before you go about changing the rules contained within. Yeah they are guidelines - or at least that's what i think, but you got to know what they do, the impact on the system/game before tampering with them.

Also changing rules because you are unfamiliar with the system is a big nono, even with my old crew who played hard and fast with the rules. "Don't change it, if you do not know what it is you are changing simply because it would be more convenient" - that was our thinking. That and the fact if you were running the game you had to really understand the rules....which always was my problem, thankfully this problem can be overcome with a little bit of discipline.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: Technicolor DreamcoatI never understand that sentiment, punishing players for something. Most of the times, they're not trying to be "stupid", they're just doing things the DM didn't anticipate. Or they're choosing "poorly" because they lack or missed certain information, or maybe they're just not as good at strategic thinking as the DM thought they were.

Because poor choices can sometimes have severe consequences. Perhaps I should say instead that if the characters make an error in judgement, then they can possibly suffer dire consequences. I think you are taking the word "punish" differently than I meant it, so hopefully my rephrasing has cleared that up. The group I play with has traditionally preferred to play this way. I've gotten no complaints so far. Also, to this date I have never had a TPK, so I don't see myself as a "killer GM" either. The fact remains that sometimes bad stuff happens, we like our games to have a very definite risk involved for the characters. This is why, although I do occasionally fudge, it's not very often.

QuoteAnd if they're clearly trying to test the boundaries, then it's better to go out of game and tell them clearly that what they're doing isn't fun for you. But grudge play, to me, always is a bad idea.

This is not what I said, or what I meant.

QuoteAnd that doesn't even touch upon the fact that a player might play a character who, some time of the other, makes poor choices.

That is true, sometimes it means the character doesn't last long. Usually, though, it means the other characters have to watch out for that character, and each other. I once played a 1/2 orc fighter (2E) with an int of 4 and str 19. He was like a child and the rest of the party was his family. He fought fiercely on their behalf and in return the took good care of him. It was a blast.

QuoteQuestion: If you want the PCs to succeed no matter what – then why do you roll the dice? Why not say "Guys, this is an awesome plan. It works perfectly."

When I roll the dice, there is always the chance for failure or success, no matter how unlikely. But if a player does something so out of the box that I really have to reward him, I let the action succeed, without rolling. That's not what the dice are for, to me.

Because many times there are varying degrees of success. Just because I want them to succeed doesn't mean I don't want them to have the opportunity to succeed "under their own steam" so to speak. I never understand why as soon as I admit on a message board that I occasionally fudge the dice if I feel it's needed at least one person has to light into me like a pitbull about it. I do it because I've found it to work for me, in my game, and my players have so far not complained about it. If it's not for you then more power to ya.

Quote from: SigmundBecause poor choices can sometimes have severe consequences. Perhaps I should say instead that if the characters make an error in judgement, then they can possibly suffer dire consequences. I think you are taking the word "punish" differently than I meant it, so hopefully my rephrasing has cleared that up.

I probably got caught up on "punish" here. If you were simply talking about consequences in the manner of "You charge the army? Alright, then the army charges back", then I'll withdraw my criticism.

QuoteI never understand why as soon as I admit on a message board that I occasionally fudge the dice if I feel it's needed at least one person has to light into me like a pitbull about it.

If that's how you felt, sorry. I'm not against you fudging; having an action automatically succeed is just another way of fudging, after all. Rest assured that if I pitbull you, I'll use harsher words.

Quote from: Technicolor DreamcoatI probably got caught up on "punish" here. If you were simply talking about consequences in the manner of "You charge the army? Alright, then the army charges back", then I'll withdraw my criticism.

That is indeed what I meant.

QuoteIf that's how you felt, sorry. I'm not against you fudging; having an action automatically succeed is just another way of fudging, after all. Rest assured that if I pitbull you, I'll use harsher words.

Well, I apologise if I'm being overly sensitive, this is an issue I've gotten attacked over before in other venues. Some people just can't seem to allow others to have their own style apparently.

As for pitbulling, I suppose I'll know it when I see it then, which is ok I guess because I know some harsh words too. I can yank a choke-chain when I need to, verbally-speaking.  :)

I do realize that auto success is a type of fudge, and it's ok for some things I suppose, but it seems to be more satisfying to the players when their plan goes off because the roll made it, instead of just because it was cool. It's an illusion, I know, but if it make 'em happy then I'm all for it.