Quote from: Exploderwizard;651217What in your opinion, makes a tavern brawl, NOT a combat? I'm curious.

Is it because there are only improvised weapons being used rather than swords?  I suppose an MMA match isn't combat either because the combatants are completely unarmed.

If it has anything at all to do with with notion of some combatants being commoners and thus 'not important in the fiction' then you are fucking storywanking and not gaming in the first place so just narrate the 'scene' as you see fit and be done with it.

You know, just forget it.  I apologize to everyone for letting myself get drawn in.  It wasn't my point to begin with, and clearly he has no clue about what hydroplaning is (hint: people can't do it by the very definition of what it is), has no idea how leverage and friction work, and thinks brawling, which includes throwing items at targets, isn't considered combat.

And honestly, I don't think I need to prove my original scenario to anyone as being reasonable.  If he disagrees, more power to him and his non-actual playing the game ass.

Note Sommerjon conveniently ignored my response to him, which basically cuts through the bullshit to the heart of the actual play issue.

Quote from: Sommerjon;651193At the same point in time when DMs thought they had a sense of entitlement

They have since the beginning.  It's literally spelled out in the rules that they do.


You certainly are a certain kind of special, that's for sure.

Quote from: SommerjonAt the same point in time when DMs thought they had a sense of entitlement

Quote from: Sacrosanct;651229They have since the beginning.  It's literally spelled out in the rules that they do.

Yeah!  And if something is in the rules, then it has to be followed, no matter what the people playing think!

GM is a servant and a fellow player, thus it was and thus it shall always be. Any idea of perceived GM entitlement grows from being immature and playing with jerks.

Its funny how these online debates make it all seem so complicated, but when I sit down to play, I've never had any problems that didnt amount to "Jerk GM, move on to a new game" or "jerk player, ditch him and continue"

Quote from: TristramEvans;651262Its funny how these online debates make it all seem so complicated, but when I sit down to play, I've never had any problems that didnt amount to "Jerk GM, move on to a new game" or "jerk player, ditch him and continue"

Because that's how it is in 99%. But when we discuss those things, sometimes the 1% does drop in. Sometimes the notions are legitimate and interesting - there are for example, problems with there only being one GM in the area. Or a small gaming group, or a legitimately broken GM who's somehow accepted by his group, etc. etc. But most of the time, and they are either a complete alien and bizarre mindset like gleichy, or someone trying to pull an equivalent of Zeno's paradoxes in RPGs, presenting situations that are technically possible, but won't happen, because they'd only happen if you play with people too socially broken to be able to get together to play an RPG in the first place.

Quote from: Benoist;651223Note Sommerjon conveniently ignored my response to him, which basically cuts through the bullshit to the heart of the actual play issue.

Yep. As I said, its not something I would ever argue at a table, even though I do disagree on the assessment of how hard it would be to tip the table.

I don't have to agree with every call a GM makes, but having a big fight at the table about it doesn't really do the game any good, it grinds shit to a halt.

Now, I might say something quick like "wouldn't three dudes on it raise the center of gravity, if I waited until their weight was distributed away from me to help with the leverage to tip the table wouldn't that make it not that hard" but if the GM said no after that I would just carry on. Don't ruin the game for everyone else.

(Basically, I would state my logic. If he disagreed with my logic, thats fine, we can move on. I'm not going to get into some tizzy over it and throw a tantrum.)

Of course I proposed some possible actions that might not be clearly spelled out in the rules showing some area where players and GMs might disagree.  I'm with Emperor Norton that flipping a table with three people on it isn't as difficult as it sounds - and in fact is likely to be easier than a table with nobody on top.  

But what this point basically boils down to is that outside of complete rules, there will be disagreements like this.  If Sacrosanct is the GM we'd have one ruling; if Emperor Norton were the GM we'd have another.  

Unless/until we're familiar with the types of things the GM will allow or how they will create a possibility, it can make it harder for a player to immerse himself in the game world.  And this type of stuff comes up can come up a lot.

Like, you have a path of rocks set in a stream of lava (just like a path of rocks in a stream of water).  The player might think 'I'll just walk right across'.  The GM might be more familiar with radiant heat and impose harsh damage per round.  Which one is right?  Well, it doesn't really matter, as long as both sides know how it's going to work in advance.

I favor knowledge of the rules for both sides of the screen.  And I certainly don't object to a 'resolution mechanic' that doesn't require the GM to be an expert on everything.  Something as simple as 'if it seems reasonable to both the player and the GM, allow it; if it seems unreasonable to both, roll off - high roll decides'.  Some people are going to have more of an issue with a GM that is wrong about 'basic common sense' type stuff - and the more the GM has to ad-hoc, the more likely they're going to wander outside of player expectations.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;651334But what this point basically boils down to is that outside of complete rules, there will be disagreements like this.  If Sacrosanct is the GM we'd have one ruling; if Emperor Norton were the GM we'd have another.

I see it as a feature, not a bug. When I play a role playing game I want to play with a bunch of particular people and a particular GM. I am fine with particular interpretations, and actually welcome them. It makes the game more personal and more vivid, in my experience. I would probably not rule in this or that instance the way the GM would, but then, so what? I'm not the GM at the table, so I'm not even trying to rule from the side-lines.

I like the fact each campaign is personal and particular, with its own vibe and tweaks and GM. This is the worlds of our imaginations after all. If I wanted to play a game serviced to me by some third party I don't give a fuck about, I would just pop a game into my Xbox and be done with it. No. What I want is to play with people. And people make personal interpretations, which makes the game generally better for me, not worse.

Planet Algol and Estar ran games where I was a player. Dungeondelver played with me at Estar's table. You can ask them. When I play the game I just play the game, and roll with whatever the DM rules.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;651334Unless/until we're familiar with the types of things the GM will allow or how they will create a possibility, it can make it harder for a player to immerse himself in the game world.  And this type of stuff comes up can come up a lot.

It really doesn't take that much to know. By the end of my very first game sessions with Planet Algol and Estar I had a pretty good idea what their DMing styles were. They're running games very differently, and they're both good DMs, in part because the game's theirs and they have that personal touch that makes it good, each in their own particular ways.

I'm not a fan of one size fits all. I prefer variety, color, and personal interpretations when playing a role playing game. This is our game when we play it. Not [insert publisher/designer's name]'s.

I think that, as far as I'm concerned, nitpicking about getting this or that modifier while playing, caring about the math down to synergy mods and whatnot, considering the rules as the game, and the game as the rules, is much more of an obstacle for me to immerse in a game world than a GM making a call and moving on with the make-believe.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;651278Now, I might say something quick like "wouldn't three dudes on it raise the center of gravity, if I waited until their weight was distributed away from me to help with the leverage to tip the table wouldn't that make it not that hard" but if the GM said no after that I would just carry on. Don't ruin the game for everyone else.

Or just kick the side of the table edge on, hard. If it doesn't collapse outright as tables aren't meant to take pressure from that angle it will certainly spill the brutes who have resorted to fisticuffs into the dregs of their own ale.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;651278Now, I might say something quick like "wouldn't three dudes on it raise the center of gravity, if I waited until their weight was distributed away from me to help with the leverage to tip the table wouldn't that make it not that hard" but if the GM said no after that I would just carry on. Don't ruin the game for everyone else.

(Basically, I would state my logic. If he disagreed with my logic, thats fine, we can move on. I'm not going to get into some tizzy over it and throw a tantrum.)

Yeah see, that kind of thing doesn't bother me at all as a DM.

Then I think about it, change my mind or not, I make a ruling, and we move on.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;651334Of course I proposed some possible actions that might not be clearly spelled out in the rules showing some area where players and GMs might disagree.  I'm with Emperor Norton that flipping a table with three people on it isn't as difficult as it sounds - and in fact is likely to be easier than a table with nobody on top.  

But what this point basically boils down to is that outside of complete rules, there will be disagreements like this.  If Sacrosanct is the GM we'd have one ruling; if Emperor Norton were the GM we'd have another.  

Unless/until we're familiar with the types of things the GM will allow or how they will create a possibility, it can make it harder for a player to immerse himself in the game world.  And this type of stuff comes up can come up a lot.

Like, you have a path of rocks set in a stream of lava (just like a path of rocks in a stream of water).  The player might think 'I'll just walk right across'.  The GM might be more familiar with radiant heat and impose harsh damage per round.  Which one is right?  Well, it doesn't really matter, as long as both sides know how it's going to work in advance.

I favor knowledge of the rules for both sides of the screen.  And I certainly don't object to a 'resolution mechanic' that doesn't require the GM to be an expert on everything.  Something as simple as 'if it seems reasonable to both the player and the GM, allow it; if it seems unreasonable to both, roll off - high roll decides'.  Some people are going to have more of an issue with a GM that is wrong about 'basic common sense' type stuff - and the more the GM has to ad-hoc, the more likely they're going to wander outside of player expectations.

I understand what you are saying, even if I don't relate to it personally.

I don't need to know how it works in advance, or the percentage chance of a specific outcome.

I just need to know lava will burn my ass to a crisp, if not kill me just for being too close.

Its not practical to write a rule for all possible events in the universe.

What you do need, is a gm that is reasonably capable of logic, and willing to accept a players input when the gm is wrong.

Quote from: Rincewind1;651264Because that's how it is in 99%. But when we discuss those things, sometimes the 1% does drop in. Sometimes the notions are legitimate and interesting - there are for example, problems with there only being one GM in the area. Or a small gaming group, or a legitimately broken GM who's somehow accepted by his group, etc. etc. But most of the time, and they are either a complete alien and bizarre mindset like gleichy, or someone trying to pull an equivalent of Zeno's paradoxes in RPGs, presenting situations that are technically possible, but won't happen, because they'd only happen if you play with people too socially broken to be able to get together to play an RPG in the first place.

Everyone can't have a 'perfect' GM and a 'perfect' group of players.

If only!

I can handle quite a bit of 'imperfect' if the group is having fun.

Quote from: Bill;651397Everyone can't have a 'perfect' GM and a 'perfect' group of players.

If only!

I can handle quite a bit of 'imperfect' if the group is having fun.

Yes. I think there's always that excluded middle thing cropping up in discussions about DMs: one side assumes they all suck and make the most terrible choices, don't know how to talk to people, are assholes etc, and the other talks about "well that wouldn't happen with a good DM".

The thing is, I really think it's not that hard to DM decently. And yes, that means you're going to make mistakes and fumble and be too intransigent and/or too lenient at some point or other and and and ... yeah. People make mistakes! News flash! But at the same time, you can't improve and become that "good DM" people like to talk about if you're never making these mistakes in the first place.

Playing with a decent DM, not a good one, a decent one, a normal not especially experienced one, can be great! Just relax, play the game, and forgive the DM if there are inconsistencies or mistakes cropping up here and there from time to time. Maybe you'll be able to talk about them after the game is over, so that these mistakes become experience which in turn will allow the DM to grow and become better over the course of the campaign? But that really shouldn't ruin anyone's day. If you're taking a bad call that seriously that you're going to fly into an extended argument with the DM and storm out of the room if you don't get your way, then maybe it's time to put down the dice and join the real world, where real people have to get along every day, and where being a dick just is the less productive option.