Quote from: AsenRG;927765Just 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?
...

Say no more, and thanks.

Though it does make it more clear where the "skip a turn for a good idea" thing makes more sense. Out of context, I was thinking the turns represented time, and so it was like "yeah, it makes sense to load with armor-piercing bullets, good-idea, so that takes no time". But of course, while that makes more sense in context, yes, that sounds like a context I don't want to know more about.

Quote from: Skarg;927771Say no more, and thanks.

Though it does make it more clear where the "skip a turn for a good idea" thing makes more sense. Out of context, I was thinking the turns represented time, and so it was like "yeah, it makes sense to load with armor-piercing bullets, good-idea, so that takes no time". But of course, while that makes more sense in context, yes, that sounds like a context I don't want to know more about.

You're welcome:).
Though I must note that the turns do indeed represent time, including your torches going out after a set number of turns and you getting tired. So yes, finding a sneaky way to bypass a chasm saves you the time you'd need otherwise to, say, prepare a rope bridge over it;).

Quote from: DavetheLost;927766Wait, 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.

Not a bad description of Torchbearer, I'm sorry to say:D!
Though some people enjoy it, so it clearly has its own market. Then again, there are people that like the restrictive bits in D&D, too, so that's hardly a surprise!

Your opinions are respected dude, really. There's no need to be an ass.

Sorry, responding to AsenRG

Quote from: rgrove0172;927794Your opinions are respected dude, really. There's no need to be an ass.

Sorry, responding to AsenRG

Funny you say that, but I'd rather send you the rest of this on PM;).

Quote from: DavetheLost;927766Wait, people actually read the Referee's advice in RPGs? I thought most GMs just skipped over that section...

I read them, because sometimes they are good or at least interesting, and they tend to give some info about the designers, which if it's a game that's new to me, helps me figure out how much more time I want to spend with it.

I tend to really like the advice in the games I like, and they greatly influenced by GM style when I was starting out. But I was lucky enough to start out with a system I really liked. The advice in In The Labyrinth, and just the thinking pattern of the whole thing, is mainly about how to run a pretty logical sandboxy game and have rules that make sense and are pretty realistic yet playable for all sorts of stuff, which fits me really well.

I appreciate the GM advice in GURPS too. Even the advice in GURPS about play modes I don't like is generally clearly marked as being for GMs of types not like me, so that's fine.

It's when some advice is written as everyone should do something I can't stand, that pushes my red buttons.

I was being somewhat facetious.  I do recomend the GM advice in the d20 version of CoC, it is excellent not only on how to run a horror game but on how to run a game in general.
One of the first sections I read when considering a new game is the Designer's Notes if any, failing that the GM's advice, it gives a good insight into what the game is trying to do and why.

The first thing I look at is the character sheet. You can tell an awful lot about a game by looking at the character sheet.

I even glance at the "what is an RPG" sometimes they sneak little bits in there too. And it can be a good place to see what style the designers are aiming for.

As an RPG nut I read those sections on games Ill never play - just cuz its entertaining. You're all right though, there are jems in there sometimes and sometimes quite a bit of crap.

Here are some examples from In The Labyrinth, to contrast to the examples rgrove posted:

A  GM,  wherever  possible,  should  determine  the reactions of
his men and monsters according to logic. Faced with a party of
six,  a  wolf  will  flee  —  unless  it's  starved,  sick,  or  defending
pups.  A  party  of  stupid  orcs  will  probably  fight  - but  if they
have  a  smart  leader, they may try to dicker, negotiate, or trick
the  players  into  a  bad  position.  The GM  can then play the orc
leader,  talking   to   the  party.   If  the   players  give  the  right
answers,  they  may  be  able  to  walk  right  by!  Otherwise,  it's a
fight.

and

 A low roll produces a very good
result  for  the  character.  A  very  HIGH  roll  produces  disaster.
For  instance, a  thief once  tried  to  use  his  Spying  talent  to  peek
through   a   doorway  without   being   seen.  He   rolled  3  dice
against  DX  -  and  got  18.  This is the WORST  possible result  -
it  means  disaster.  In  this  case,  he  tripped  and  fell through the
door!   Since  there  were  a  dozen  Green  Slimes  on  the  other
side,  he  was  immediately  eaten.  Tough  luck.  Roll  better  next
time.

and

random   creatures   should   be
confined  to   those  that  would  logically  be  found  wandering
aimlessly  in  the  area.  It  is  NOT  logical  to  pull  trolls,  groups
of  orcs,  or  similar  menaces  out  of  thin  air  in  an  otherwise
well-worked-out labyrinth.

And how are those in anyway contrasted with those I posted? Im not being snarky, but honestly I don't see the correlation at all. My posts referred to GMs deviating from the rules a bit. Your are addressing logic and dice interpretation. Did I miss something?

Quote from: DavetheLost;927893One of the first sections I read when considering a new game is the Designer's Notes if any, failing that the GM's advice, it gives a good insight into what the game is trying to do and why.

The first thing I look at is the character sheet. You can tell an awful lot about a game by looking at the character sheet.

I even glance at the "what is an RPG" sometimes they sneak little bits in there too. And it can be a good place to see what style the designers are aiming for.

Great stuff. I do exactly the same.

Quote from: rgrove0172;927912And how are those in anyway contrasted with those I posted? Im not being snarky, but honestly I don't see the correlation at all. My posts referred to GMs deviating from the rules a bit. Your are addressing logic and dice interpretation. Did I miss something?

Because you are again cherry picking quotes to try and make your style of play a valid majority. When it is not. And never has been. And so this tired dance goes round and round and round... again...

Lets repeat this again because why the hell not...

Just because someone puts advice in a game IN NO WAY makes it good advice.
RuinsWorld tells the players its ok to lie on a trade and STEAL cards. Fantasy Wargaming(the RPG, not the wargaming book) Tells the GM to take over the players characters and make them fight and squabble amongst themselves and other horrible advice. A couple of RPGs tell the GM that it is perfectly fine to tweak rolls for whatever reason. And so on.

Quote from: rgrove0172;927912And how are those in anyway contrasted with those I posted? Im not being snarky, but honestly I don't see the correlation at all. My posts referred to GMs deviating from the rules a bit. Your are addressing logic and dice interpretation. Did I miss something?

Oh sorry rgrove, I overstated how directly they all applied to your examples. I mainly meant I think the general GM style presented in ITL is about logic and in-game-world cause & effect, which to me contrasts with the GM style in the parts I disagree with in your examples.

My first ITL quote actually agrees with the part of your second D&D 5e quote where good ideas should just work without rolling, but as I wrote in my earlier reply to your 5e quotes, only if "good idea" relates to logic and the situation (not, say, rule of cool, or because the GM likes that it helps his pre-determined plot).

My second ITL quote seems to me opposed to your first 5e quote, which advocated fudging to protect PCs from bad luck. I also find it relevant opposition to the idea suggested earlier in this thread that there is no difference if the GM changes the game world in ways the players have no information about yet. If your GM determines what is there and plays faithfully to that situation, then it's fair bad fortune that the thief died that way. If the GM changes/invents stuff at will and you flub a roll and he says you fall and are eaten by slime, then it's more like he just chose to kill you. The first death is like when someone accidentally causes a severe penalty in football - a fluke but part of the game you need to be ready to handle. It seems to me the second death is more like one team gets a really dubious penalty because the ref is biased or crooked.

My third ITL quote isn't really about your 5e quotes except that again to me it relfects the general approach of prep/maps/logic/rules/rolls as opposed to improv/maplessness/meta/apathy, and actually that other old forum topic about (il)logical wandering monsters. But to me, though a stretch (makes more sense if you see the rest of ITL, where it shows detailed multi-level labyrinth maps and suggests using counters to track NPC positions, and has rules for how far noise from different activities carries, taking into account intervening terrain) it could also be relevant to your other post here about the Star Wars game which seemed mapped but was really a string of encounters.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927738No idea why it matters to him, but it oh so obviously does.

This is one of those things that "does not matter" until someone finds a way to come up with some actual data. Then suddenly everyone cares.

Quote from: Trond;927975This is one of those things that "does not matter" until someone finds a way to come up with some actual data. Then suddenly everyone cares.

Eh, Grove's been seeking validation by claiming that his GMing style is the majority since the beginning of the hobby ever since his first thread.  So far his "actual data" amounts to a quote from 2014 that references fudging not illusionism and a quote from a Forgie author who is even more anti-fudging than most anti-fudgers here.  "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" does not mean "Roll the Dice then do whatever you want".  Even cursory reading of anything Luke Crane's written shows him to be a firm believer in restricting GM power and coding into mechanics way to prevent GM abuse.  Grove's self-described style combines very strong GM Storytelling, Illusionism, Fudging and Railroading.  Crane is the anti-Grove for most of Grove's style.

You might find a single source that advocates a single technique that Grove says he uses, especially when you take it out of context and claim it means whatever you want it to.  Now find me a quote from any source, any game, any language on the planet that supports all of those at the same time.  Get to fucking work, I'll send you the address of the old folk's home I check into so you can send me your "actual data" results in 40 years.  Oh yeah, you won't find any, nevermind.

Laugh. You guys win. This is hilarious. You keep doing what you do and I'll do the same. This Cracks Me up.