It seems to me that the whole idea that the GM must be bound to the RPG system he's running, and that players can DEMAND that the GM obey the rules and prove he's doing so, is an idea that is increasingly being pushed, particularly now with 4e essentially subscribing to this (but as an idea it was already being pushed somewhat back in 3.5).

Now, obviously, the big proponents of this idea of "we can use System to force the GM to do what we want" comes from the Forge, where their goal at all times seems to be the neutering of the GM.
But while the Forge Swine are huge proponents of this concept, it is clearly not an idea that is limited to their ranks; and part of the reason that they've had a great deal more success pushing this notion than most of their other idiotic ideas was because there really are a lot of gamers out there who seem to feel that its "good" to be able to make the rules matter more than the GM.

As with most things that have gone horribly wrong in gaming, the ultimate blame for all this comes from the Storytelling/White Wolf Swine. Obviously, they do NOT subscribe to this theory.  That's the problem, they had another, equally stupid motto: "system doesn't matter".  In other words, the GM telling his story (or the WW sourcebook "author's" story) is all that matters, and you can outright ignore the system completely, because really who cares about stupid mechanics except those unwashed players who should be grateful to get to sit and watch you "create a story" with your brilliant acting.

So that was the stupid, stupid fucking idea; that lead to a bunch of pissed off people embracing another idea that's just as stupid which is essentially "GMs must be controlled".

RPGPundit

I'd say it goes back pretty much to the beginning of RPGs.  

Pretty much every game and edition began to codify more and more things after the initial versions/books of OD&D, Runequest, and/or Traveller.  If you codify rules, players will expect the GM to follow those rules.

Failing that, I'd say a lot of the attitude started way back when as a backlash to the bad DMs in ye olde days who decided that they should be antagonstic to the PCs.  The ones who thought that Gygax's tournament dungeons represented how the game should be regularly played.  The viking hat wearers.

As a GM, I study the system and my intent is always to follow the rules. If during the session I need to make a call about a crap rule, I ask the players how they feel about changing the rule from X to Y, most will agree and we move on.

I honestly haven't had to all that much, and I also prefer intuitive system mechanics, like L5R and Tri-Stat, where making a call about a specific situation is easier than remembering a thousand exception rules from other systems...

So yeah, I follow the rules, but I let the rules be the tool too.

Let's throw MMOs and CRPGs into the mix too since they force the player among a given path and they condition people to think a certain way.

I agree with jgants. I think that one basic idea is that bit by bit the D&D game evolved from being DM-centric in terms of rules to, later, have specific offerings to players (this became significant with AD&D2, the Complete series, character kits and so on). 3rd ed and 4th ed are actually the natural evolution of this original concept from 2nd ed (which I guess was originally inspired by ICE's Rolemaster, a competitor at the time).

This isn't the only element in this evolution, of course. There are actually many DMs who believe they actually read the rules of the AD&D game, in particular, but never read the 1st ed DMG cover to cover. In other words, they know the rules, the tables, but never cared to truly understand the underlying gaming intent behind these rules.

Same thing goes for the 3rd ed DMG, by the way.

Another factor is what jgants was talking about: I call it the "Unearthed Arcana" factor, that is, the further codification of the game, and moreover, the addition of optional variants to the core that led players coming to game tables to ask "what rules are we using in this game?" which in term led to a greater scrutiny of the rules and how the DM used them.

The multiplication of game systems didn't help in this regard either.

I'm sure there are a whole lot of other reasons as well. The White Wolf design philosophy didn't help either, I do agree, because it created the pendulum effect of reinforcing the role of the rules at the table in 3rd edition, no question about it. That's what players wanted at the time, after the reverse "RPG is Art" WW period.

It's been a problem since the 70's at least in my experience. I had to deal with players telling me monster X had too many hit points for years before 2e ever showed up.
IME it has much more to do with the players than anything else. I've seen guys go nuts over what they perceived to infractions since the earliest of early days. I've also run 4e, and had no one at the table question my judgment. We could print rule 0 on the front cover of every game out there, or have Jessica Alba show up at the session with it stamped on her naked tits,  and the guys who make trouble over this shit would still be there. We could take rule zero out of every game and the people who live by it (like me and most of the guys I've played with) would still keep on truckin.
In short I don't believe in the good old days- because I was there, and they were about the same as the present- except with mullets.

Quote from: BenoistI'm sure there are a whole lot of other reasons as well. The White Wolf design philosophy didn't help either, I do agree, because it created the pendulum effect of reinforcing the role of the rules at the table in 3rd edition, no question about it. That's what players wanted at the time, after the reverse "RPG is Art" WW period.

This is dumb. The reason game "evolved" that way has nothing to do with Forge or WW. It has nothing to do with "RPGs as art."

What it comes down to is this: there are more players than GMs. After RPGs weren't *new* anymore they became big business and included things like focus groups and registration surveys. Since the majority of responders would be players, what do you think most players would be clamoring for?

The answer is easy: more power. They want to have more power and part of maintaining that power is making sure there are no "cheater" GMs "making up shit" taking away their control of the game. So now GM's have a different set of rules to follow.

Here's an actual quote from one of my players:

Quote from: One of my Players"All we [the players] have are the rules. If you don't play by the rules it takes away what little control we have over the game to begin with."

I think it sums up nicely the general player who has never GM'd attitude which make up the majority of the RPG hobby and especially, the majority of the D&D playerbase.

The reasons why I personally think the GM and the players should follow the same rules is so that players can actually expect to develop skill at playing. It promotes tactical mastery and system interest and having a more detailed game if the players know "If I use this move, I'll get this bonus..."

At that point they have the expectation if they use a rule it will be interpreted pretty much like the book says.

If the players are under the impression that all calls are just arbitrary and up to the GMs interpretation, they will either : invest less energy in actually learning the game system because it's ajust one big imaginational exercise, which needs no game system..

Or it leads to a humor the GM type of game where people use joke names and avoid getting involved in the essentially disposable nature of the game. Because what is the point?

Quote from: KrakaJak;291656This is dumb. The reason game "evolved" that way has nothing to do with Forge or WW. It has nothing to do with "RPGs as art."

This I agree with.
From there I propose that it has to do with people. People are conditioned from kindergarten to believe that rules are expected to be followed.

Initially there were not a lot of rules written down and the expectation was that a Game Ruler/Judge would determine the "Rule of Law" as needed.

As the games have been played longer, the expectation is that by now there should be rules, and as there are, they should be followed.

Those who play to get away from RULES, play different games than those who expect RULES.  (and likely prefer different genre as well)
=

Quote from: Aos;291655In short I don't believe in the good old days- because I was there, and they were about the same as the present- except with mullets.

Which is similar to my point about the shift in focus being created by the folks who were around for the GM as God days...

Seanchai

Quote from: Aos;291655In short I don't believe in the good old days- because I was there, and they were about the same as the present- except with mullets.

Proof that gaming needs more mullets.

Players don't deserve "power". What they DO deserve is a benevolent dictator.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;291660The reasons why I personally think the GM and the players should follow the same rules is so that players can actually expect to develop skill at playing. It promotes tactical mastery and system interest and having a more detailed game if the players know "If I use this move, I'll get this bonus..."

I generally do not use rules systems that promote this type of "system mastery." A player doesn't need to even know the rules in any detail to play, they can simply tell me what their character does and I can map it to the rules system. The immersive style of play combined with less complex rules I tend to use makes this easy. Players can develop a lot of skill at playing in this type of game without having to buy any rulebooks -- let alone study them like they were books of chess openings. Different strokes for different folks.

I just found that following the rules (as GM) was easier than not following the rules*. Also, if I want to make shit up I'll just make shit up.


*Somewhere back in the 80s, when I had a reverse mullet for a while.

Quote from: droog;291680*Somewhere back in the 80s, when I had a reverse mullet for a while.

You deserve only death.


On topic, there's so many conditional, borderline, and tangential issues that I can't imagine ever not needing to house-rule or spot-call something, at least some of the time. An inflexible adherence to the rules would get in the way of that, even if there was an explicit 'without guidance, GM call' rule tucked in the back.