Quote from: Omega;927475Yes yes because everyone is watching for the evil DMs 24/7 just in case they are an evil DM. Because you NEVER KNOW if the DM is evil so better watch them all carefully to catch them in the act. Because YOU'LL KNOW!

I know you're being facetious, but isn't that what the Forge effectively taught us?

Quote from: Sommerjon;927461You're real good at poking others,

Yes:D.

Quotebut when someone pokes back you deem them a troll.  How convenient for you.

What, are you trying to tell you're NOT a troll? That would be a surprise for half the users here. The others haven't bothered to remember your handle:).

And that's why there's no point in you denying being a troll until you change what you're doing. If it quacks like a troll, and walks like a troll...it's probably Sommerjon!

QuoteYou know how you say it is so easy to spot Illusionism, same can be said for a Bullshitter.
The bullshit you have been spewing has been way too easy to see, perhaps some day you will get better(I doubt it) at it.

Getting better at spewing bullshit ain't my goal. I'll leave it to you to practice in that necessary troll skill;).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;927560I know you're being facetious, but isn't that what the Forge effectively taught us?

Yep. Thank Cuthbert that the Forge came along to save us from the evil DM and teach us that ALL DMs are evil and must be shackled to protect the pure and innocent players.

Quote from: AsenRG;927641Yes:D.

What, are you trying to tell you're NOT a troll? That would be a surprise for half the users here. The others haven't bothered to remember your handle:).

And that's why there's no point in you denying being a troll until you change what you're doing. If it quacks like a troll, and walks like a troll...it's probably Sommerjon!



Getting better at spewing bullshit ain't my goal. I'll leave it to you to practice in that necessary troll skill;).

Look at the try hard.

I realize this thread got seriously derailed but as the previous thread regarding railroading and such is already dead and buried Ill post this here instead.

I don't mean to reopen a can of worms with this post either, I completely accept what many of you have been saying. I was however a little surprised after the reception my approach was given here to read the following in two new books I just purchased.

D&D 5th Edition -DMG, p.235 "Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, change the second critical hit into a regular hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls too often though, and don't let on that your doing it."

and on p. 237 "Remember the dice don't run your game - you do! Dice are like rules. They are tools to help keep the action moving. At any time you can decide a players action is automatically successful."

There is also a paragraph on the previous page explaining how the DM can not roll dice at all on some tasks and simply rule success or failure based on how the players describe their attempt and the conditions present.

Ill admit this came as a bit of a surprise as although I had seen such phrases in previous editions I assumed from the response here that is was outdated and frowned on.

Then, to my surprise I am reading through another new book only a day later and discovered this..

Torchbearer, corebook. p.117 "If you think the players have come up with a good idea - a smart use of their gear, spells or even bodies- then there is no need to roll the dice for the test, no need to spend a check, and it doesn't cost a turn. Simply say to them "That's a good idea," then describe the effect of the action."

This sort of permitted, even suggested deviation from game rules is exactly what Ive been defending. Yes, yes I know, I totally get that many hate it - and that's fine. It really is a personal preference in GMin approach. There is however no denying its a major part of the hobby, has been for years and evidently still is as two very new and highly popular publications endorse it.

Im beginning to wonder if the direction of these arguments is related more to the circumstancial makeup of the membership here rather than some statement on the leanings of the industry. I can see where in a different demographic of gamers the majority might be siding with me and the anti-railroaders finding themselves in the minority.

At any rate, that doesn't change a thing in our debate here. It is what it is and Ive accepted and appreciate the opinions Ive heard all round.

Quote from: rgrove0172;927708There is however no denying its a major part of the hobby, has been for years and evidently still is as two very new and highly popular publications endorse it.

Im beginning to wonder if the direction of these arguments is related more to the circumstancial makeup of the membership here rather than some statement on the leanings of the industry. I can see where in a different demographic of gamers the majority might be siding with me and the anti-railroaders finding themselves in the minority.

At any rate, that doesn't change a thing in our debate here. It is what it is and Ive accepted and appreciate the opinions Ive heard all round.

"Fudging" to correct mistakes, for example, in an even-handed way, has been advocated by Gygax himself.  However,  it's done so as a corrective measure, not how you evaluate every roll, or ensure that your plot is followed.

Doing what you do, which basically makes sure that X will occur no matter what the players do, and no matter what they roll, has always been an outlier.

I'll give you that this place skews very heavily anti-fudging, but go look at several polls on Enworld, read the Paizo forums, and you'll find the non-fudgers outnumber the fudgers by a good margin.  Why?  To be perfectly frank, GMs like you, albeit probably with less skill and more abuse.

Quote from: rgrove0172;927708Ill admit this came as a bit of a surprise as although I had seen such phrases in previous editions I assumed from the response here that is was outdated and frowned on.

Yeah several us frown on one or more of those recommendations. I've been aware of recommendations like that since at least the early 1980s. I’m not surprised some designers still recommend stuff like that. But that recommendation has nothing to do with games being "outdated" which frankly is a goofy concept to apply to games.

Some things that RPGs aren't.

• Perishables like milk, eggs, bread, fruit, or vegetables that need a sell-by-date so you know when they start to go bad.
• Pharmaceuticals that have an expiry date after which the product looses efficacy.
• Runway designer fashions that become so "last season" once a new season rolls around.
• Certain kinds of technology e.g cars without headlights, electric starters, windshield wipers, heaters, power steering, air conditioning, sound systems, power brakes, adjustable seats are outdated compared with cars with those things.

A few questions to ponder.

• Is checkers a better game than chess if more people play it?
• Is Monopoly a better game than chess because it is newer than chess?
• Is soccer a better game than badminton because more people play it?
• Does the fact that more people play soccer mean that people who like badminton should stop wacking their birdies with a racket and run around kicking a soccer ball instead?

QuoteI can see where in a different demographic of gamers the majority might be siding with me and the anti-railroaders finding themselves in the minority.

The true popularity of any particular style of gaming is not known. No one has that data. Practically speaking, it is unknowable, since there isn’t sufficient value in table tope RPGs for anyone to spend the effort needed to get even half-way good estimates. Sales data, wouldn’t tell you that even if companies made their sales data publicly available – which they mostly don’t.

Why does it matter to you if more people like the way you run games than like the way I run games...or vice versa?

One of my all time favorite RPGs, with an active online community, active publishing support of new content, and a just launched official miniatures range is the vintage 1976 1e Metamorphosis Alpha.No need for a retroclone when the original is still going strong. And it certainly hasn't expired. I have even taught it to kids whose parents weren't born in 1976!

As for opinions of game mastering style, there is exactly one group of people whose opinions of my GMing style I care about, my players. Likewise the only GMs whose style I care about are the ones running games I'm playing in.  Anyone outside those groups don't really affect my enjoyment of my hobby. Unless I choose to let them.

Quote from: Bren;927721Why does it matter to you if more people like the way you run games than like the way I run games...or vice versa?

No idea why it matters to him, but it oh so obviously does.

Quote from: Sommerjon;927705Look at the try hard.

Look at the troll at a loss for words.

(You're still funny. When you stop being so, I'll come after you...with either my IL, or hired Adventurers. Depending on my mood).

Quote from: rgrove0172;927708I realize this thread got seriously derailed but as the previous thread regarding railroading and such is already dead and buried Ill post this here instead.

I don't mean to reopen a can of worms with this post either,

I don't trust that statement, either. But let's roll along...

QuoteI completely accept what many of you have been saying. I was however a little surprised after the reception my approach was given here to read the following in two new books I just purchased. (...)
Ill admit this came as a bit of a surprise as although I had seen such phrases in previous editions I assumed from the response here that is was outdated and frowned on.

Then, to my surprise I am reading through another new book only a day later and discovered this.

(...)

Yeah, right;).

QuoteThis sort of permitted, even suggested deviation from game rules is exactly what Ive been defending.

No, it's not what you've been defending. It's not what people have been talking about with you, either - except briefly. Fudging wasn't an important matter at all in this discussion (I don't even remember writing any arguments pro and contra...of course, no need to add that it would have been contra, but I probably just nodded along with what other people said, and moved along).
So, why are you bringing up examples of "rules bending"? Trying to move goalposts or what?
Fudging=/=Illusionism. It's not even required in order to have an illusionist GMing style.

QuoteYes, yes I know, I totally get that many hate it - and that's fine. It really is a personal preference in GMin approach. There is however no denying its a major part of the hobby, has been for years and evidently still is as two very new and highly popular publications endorse it.

Im beginning to wonder if the direction of these arguments is related more to the circumstancial makeup of the membership here rather than some statement on the leanings of the industry. I can see where in a different demographic of gamers the majority might be siding with me and the anti-railroaders finding themselves in the minority.

Still trying to position yourself as "the silent majority", I see;)?

"Highly popular" publications "endorsing" it means nothing other than the authors thinking it's a good idea to put such rules in. It doesn't even tell you the opinion of the players that buy said games.
Want some proof for that statement?
Good. Open your Torchbearer PDF (it will be easier with the PDF). Search for my first name, same as my handle here.
...Did you find it? Right in the list of "Kickstarter backers"?
Yeah, I purchased Torchbearer sight unseen. (And I'm kinda sorry for doing so, but not because of the statement you quoted. No, what I dislike about the game is the division of "Player turns" and "GM turns").
So, that's how much the statement in the book means: it means it's the author's opinion. No less, but certainly, no more.
People that write D&D 5e don't speak for all D&D 5e players, either.

Attempt at positioning yourself as "having the backing of the majority": FAILED.

(And the rule you quoted from Torchbearer also doesn't say anything about fudging. Deciding a solution is good enough to not need a roll is one thing, and something that's fully within a GM's prerogatives. Deciding to call for a roll and then ignore the result is another.
Funny you're giving that example, though. Luke Crane's attitude towards fudging makes me look quite temperate in comparison. I just don't accept the idea, he thinks it's a dangerous practice full of fail, paraphrasing it:p).

QuoteAt any rate, that doesn't change a thing in our debate here. It is what it is and Ive accepted and appreciate the opinions Ive heard all round.

Wonderful, then you shall not be disappointed;)!

Quote from: Omega;927649Yep. Thank Cuthbert that the Forge came along to save us from the evil DM and teach us that ALL DMs are evil and must be shackled to protect the pure and innocent players.

You say that, and yet, there are several game lines out there that took that to heart, like FATE.  The Forge really fucked us over, and we're still feeling the after effects.

This thread is so full of fail.

Quote from: rgrove0172;927708D&D 5th Edition -DMG, p.235 "Rolling behind the screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, change the second critical hit into a regular hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls too often though, and don't let on that your doing it."

The more I learn about D&D 5e, the less I like it. Pros seem to be it isn't D&D 4e and it isn't D&D 3e, which seem worse but in different ways. If I were to be forced to play D&D, I'd run 0D&D because it has the fewest rules, and they're simpler to dismiss and replace than later editions' rules. Even when I was 11 years old, D&D seemed like it was full of ridiculous rules that were best as inspiration to make up better rules because they clearly made little if any sense, and/or an excuse to make fun of people who took them seriously and adhered to them literally. The advice in the 5e line you quoted is up there for me with 5e not letting anyone ever die in a single blow (IIUC), or having the opponents the party meets, and the treasure they have, be determined by a statistical formula based on the player party's power levels. It makes my brain hurt and I want anyone running or programming such a game to give me early warnings that's how it goes, so I can get as far away from it as I can.

Quoteand on p. 237 "Remember the dice don't run your game - you do! Dice are like rules. They are tools to help keep the action moving. At any time you can decide a players action is automatically successful."

There is also a paragraph on the previous page explaining how the DM can not roll dice at all on some tasks and simply rule success or failure based on how the players describe their attempt and the conditions present.

These on the other hand, depend entirely on the context. If a player describes what they do in a way that just makes sense (according to logic & in-game circumstances, not according to some retarded Hollywood film they saw), then I may not think there is any reason to roll (i.e. if I did, the odds would be really low and/or they could just try again and the odds would again be really low and nothing is going on where it matters so ya let it work, or mention they try a couple times and it works soon enough).

But if the context is serious combat, or other important events that are in the scope of the gameplay where there is a social contract to make the game be about what the outcome is and to play by certain rules, then the "GM can decide" should never be invoked also because the GM under such a contract should never want to. If the GM finds they want to fake the important game results and run forced action for some reason, they should tell a player like me and the folks I tend to like playing with, or else we're going to feel cheated of the chance to play the kind of game that interests us.

So writing this in a D&D core book in advice for new GMs seems like it's irresponsibly falling on the opposite side of the fence/neighborhood where I like to play. Apparently it is way far out of bounds in many other dimensions as well.

QuoteIll admit this came as a bit of a surprise as although I had seen such phrases in previous editions I assumed from the response here that is was outdated and frowned on.

No, it's apparently the current D&D 5e way, and frowned on by those many of us here who hate that way of playing, and are annoyed when it is presented as a way to play that many players might have a very natural and justified dislike for, especially when people are pretending that's not what they're doing. It'd get more of a pass if they also mentioned that other play styles were another option, and that it'd be good to be up-front about it.

QuoteThen, to my surprise I am reading through another new book only a day later and discovered this..

Torchbearer, corebook. p.117 "If you think the players have come up with a good idea - a smart use of their gear, spells or even bodies- then there is no need to roll the dice for the test, no need to spend a check, and it doesn't cost a turn. Simply say to them "That's a good idea," then describe the effect of the action."

Oh joy. I don't know anything else about Torchbearer, and it sounds like I likely don't want to. Again, I agree that good ideas should tend to work, and may not need rolls. But that's assuming my usual context of wanting my games to make sense. So a "good idea" would be something that would be so likely to work or so little reason to game out it that it makes sense to let it happen. And where a "good idea" based on it seeming cool but unrealistic, or a movie cliche that's not really certain to work, or a good idea that might not work, or it's important to know how long it takes before a good idea works out because of other circumstances where there's something important at stake, then I want to assess the odds and roll. Why Torchbearer says a good idea means it would not take a turn or would always work, I don't know, but I suspect it's meta-reasoning, whereas I tend to prefer more simulationist gaming, and not want it tainted by rule-of-cool. When I'm trying to play in a game and figure out the situation and strategies that will actually work, and another player decides to do some wild-ass stunt that would likely not work out, if the GM decides to let their BS work because of rule of cool, that's not cool in my book, and makes me want to find another game.

QuoteThis sort of permitted, even suggested deviation from game rules is exactly what Ive been defending. Yes, yes I know, I totally get that many hate it - and that's fine. It really is a personal preference in GMin approach. There is however no denying its a major part of the hobby, has been for years and evidently still is as two very new and highly popular publications endorse it.

Well D&D and characters with levels, classes, piles of hitpoints, armor that makes them harder to hit but doesn't reduce damage, XP for finding gold not for doing things, severe power curves, 30' infravision until a creature joins the party, have all been in some highly popular since RPGs were created, yet I have always disliked all those things. The taint continues and mutates into new forms of ludicrous non-simulationist forms, and encourages pretending to play by complex rules yet deceive players about when they're actually being used or not. To me that's always felt like a big dysfunctional pile or taint that I'm at least grateful has a familiar stench, so that I can easily notice and avoid the games and players I don't want to play with.

QuoteIm beginning to wonder if the direction of these arguments is related more to the circumstancial makeup of the membership here rather than some statement on the leanings of the industry. I can see where in a different demographic of gamers the majority might be siding with me and the anti-railroaders finding themselves in the minority.

You're beginning to wonder? Hehe! People have already mentioned it is a real circumstance. Yes there is a circumstance that there are several people here who share dislikes, and who don't look for guidance from "the leanings of the industry" nor the majority of gamer demographics, whatever that unknown complex data might look like if it even existed. There are also reasons and causes for these circumstances...

Quote from: Skarg;927758Oh joy. I don't know anything else about Torchbearer, and it sounds like I likely don't want to. Again, I agree that good ideas should tend to work, and may not need rolls. But that's assuming my usual context of wanting my games to make sense. So a "good idea" would be something that would be so likely to work or so little reason to game out it that it makes sense to let it happen. And where a "good idea" based on it seeming cool but unrealistic, or a movie cliche that's not really certain to work, or a good idea that might not work, or it's important to know how long it takes before a good idea works out because of other circumstances where there's something important at stake, then I want to assess the odds and roll. Why Torchbearer says a good idea means it would not take a turn or would always work, I don't know, but I suspect it's meta-reasoning, whereas I tend to prefer more simulationist gaming, and not want it tainted by rule-of-cool. When I'm trying to play in a game and figure out the situation and strategies that will actually work, and another player decides to do some wild-ass stunt that would likely not work out, if the GM decides to let their BS work because of rule of cool, that's not cool in my book, and makes me want to find another game.

Just take it from me as a backer of Torchbearer: from all I know about your preferences, you do want to find another game:p. I mean, the game separates GM turn and players turn, and players' turn lasts the clearly measurable time "until they roll a check", need I say more?

Just as I'd be looking for another game instead of 5e, based on Rgrove's presentation...well, I'd be loking,if I didn't already have a library with hundreds of titles to pick from, that is.

QuoteWell D&D and characters with levels, classes, piles of hitpoints, armor that makes them harder to hit but doesn't reduce damage, XP for finding gold not for doing things, severe power curves, 30' infravision until a creature joins the party, have all been in some highly popular since RPGs were created, yet I have always disliked all those things. The taint continues and mutates into new forms of ludicrous non-simulationist forms, and encourages pretending to play by complex rules yet deceive players about when they're actually being used or not. To me that's always felt like a big dysfunctional pile or taint that I'm at least grateful has a familiar stench, so that I can easily notice and avoid the games and players I don't want to play with.

Word:D!

QuoteYou're beginning to wonder? Hehe! People have already mentioned it is a real circumstance. Yes there is a circumstance that there are several people here who share dislikes, and who don't look for guidance from "the leanings of the industry" nor the majority of gamer demographics, whatever that unknown complex data might look like if it even existed. There are also reasons and causes for these circumstances...

In order to even consider looking for guidance from "the leanings of the industry", I'd need to know what said leanings are.
Based on Paizo gaining a not insignificant share of the RPG market of WotC a few years back, I'd say not even the market leader fully understands those leanings, not even in things as basic as rules systems.
If that's the case, anyone who pretends to know what Refereeing advice* is the most popular to follow, is either mistaken, or just trying to position his own GMing style as being "the most popular". I'd bet on the latter in this case;).


*At best a detail in most RPG books, and one that's usually easily discarded and replaced.

Wait, people actually read the Referee's advice in RPGs? I thought most GMs just skipped over that section.

As for Torch Bearer, I bought it because I was told it was a fantasy game based on Mouse Guard. It isn't. At least not the things that to my mind make Mouse Guard brilliant. Instead it takes the bits of Mouse Guard that don't work well for other settings, the more restrictive bits of D&D, and the bits of Burning Wheel that make my head hurt and mixes them together in a blender.

Thankfully I was able to borrow Burning Wheel from a friend before buying it. Warmed over Tolkienesque fantasy. Yawn!  The system might have provided interesting role playing if only it had not been tied to such a cliched setting and world style.

It's not that I object to elves and dwarves and such, so much as that I get bored of them always being Tolkien, Shanara, D&D style. If you are going to use them go back to folklore and myth. Do something even slightly different with them.