Quote from: KenHR;292029How the hell was that an attack?

The general MO for those defending the GM-as-God paradigm is to say it's all about whiny players and shitty GMs. OG is just doing the same again.

I heard stories of DMs like that... but never actually met any.  I mean, after you TPK a few parties with your home-brew Tomb of Horrors, I'd guess you wouldn't get asked to sit in the DM chair all that often.  It's not like it's THAT hard to DM.

Yeah, granted Stuart. I knew a few really bad DMs like this and heard more stories than seen them in action myself. But then, does it really matter if the stories really happened or not? Even as stories, they sort of conveyed a sense of "here's what a really manly DM is all about, peons!"

Quote from: droog;292055The general MO for those defending the GM-as-God paradigm is to say it's all about whiny players and shitty GMs. OG is just doing the same again.

Surely, you don't believe that when I'm saying the whole black box thing comes down to shitty players or DM, I'm actually talking about you, right? Because I'm absolutely not talking about you or anyone in this thread. Just making that clear.

Seriously, you got offended by this?

Quote from: Benoist;292060Surely, you don't believe that when I'm saying the whole black box thing comes down to shitty players or DM, I'm actually talking about you, right?

I know you're not talking about me, buddy.

But you seem to be unwilling to engage with the fact that several people, from the GM's seat, have made rational choices.

I could simply waltz through this argument saying that the only reason people prefer the God paradigm is that they feel inadequate in their daily lives. Not that I'd be talking about anybody here, of course. But it's not a very cogent argument.

Quote from: droog;292064I could simply waltz through this argument saying that the only reason people prefer the God paradigm is that they they're inadequate in their daily lives. Not that I'd be talking about anybody here, of course. But it's not a very cogent argument.

Yet as a disruptive meme in this discussion, it would be great. Only from you, Droog. Only from you.

Quote from: droog;292064I could simply waltz through this argument saying that the only reason people prefer the God paradigm is that they feel inadequate in their daily lives. Not that I'd be talking about anybody here, of course. But it's not a very cogent argument.

Of course, you'd be wrong.

I'm unwilling to recognize that any argument in favor of "the rules before the DMs rulings"* has been logical or sound so far. It is true.

* NB: You are the guys who choose to call it "DM as God", which in itself IMO is a stretch at best, a negative, rhetorical characterization at worse.

Quote from: droog;291722After a couple of decades, I just find that exhausting. Some of the other lazy bastards round the table can step up and take a hand.

I agree. Moreover, how do you make someone have fun?

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;292070I'm however unwilling to recognize that any argument in favor of the rules before the DMs rulings has been logical or sound so far, yes.

Well, there you go. Heaven help a player in your game.

Quote from: droog;292072Well, there you go. Heaven help a player in your game.

Now you are the one who's implying I suck as a DM. Nice, rational argument you got here, jackass.
Everything's fine with my DMing, by the way. Thanks for asking.

Quote from: RandallS;291826Of course, I take into account the player's attributes and skills when making my decisions, but player skill matters a lot more that character skill on such things. The players have to describe what they are doing (and their roll -- if any -- is heavily modified by what they describe), they can't just say "I make a skill roll" as their search method or their negotiation method.

And the same is true when I'm behind the screen as well.

For me, the interaction between the people at the table is never replaced by rolling dice. If you want to find something, tell me how you go about looking for it. If you want to convince someone of something, tell me how you make the argument.

However, if the system includes a search skill or a diplomacy skill, and everyone's agreed we're going to play this game right here, then the dice are going to roll, and the character skills or attributes or whatever are going to play a (potentially decisive) role in the outcome.

This goes back to a point I brought up earlier: the choice of system is going to make a big difference in how much and how often the referee is going to make rulings in play. In 1e AD&D, before OA and the Survival Guides introduced proficiencies, a character's "skills" may be (1) class abilities and (2) a roll on the Secondary Skill chart, with the latter yielding results like "animal husbandry" or "navigation" or "carpentry." (Some races have additional abilities as well.) The players and the referee are expected to fill in the gaps here much more often than in d20 games, with the latter's lengthy skill lists, skill points, attribute bonuses and feats.

For my part I prefer roleplaying game which offer a smaller number of broad-stroke skills as opposed to long lists of narrowly defined skills. That's more in my wheelhouse: enough for the players to optimize a bit without turning the game into a statistics seminar, with much left to the imagination of the players and the referee. Frex, d20 has Jump, Climb, and Tumble; Flashing Blades has Acrobatics. Guess which one I like better?

Another reason I prefer fewer, more broadly defined skills is that it helps to avoid straightjacketing player choices. One of my problems with d20 is that feats may constrain player choices for their characters: frex, Ultramodern Firearms make suppressing fire a feat, possibly discourgaging players from choosing to lay down covering fire since characters lacking the feat take a penalty on the roll. Defining skills and abilities too narrowly may crimp player creativity.

Quote from: Benoist;291872PS: Thanks to the Shaman for the explanation as well. This was enlightening.

Thanks for adding the post script, Benoist. I didn't know if you'd seen my reply, or if it was helpful or not.

Quote from: Benoist;291872But see, in my opinion, if players are playing guessing games with the GM to such an extent as to become an issue at the game table, then there is a problem with: A) The GM, B) The Players or C) any combination thereof.

Either the GM sucks, doesn't know how to get the players involved in the game, isn't consistent in his DMing etc, and/or the players are metagaming.

With all due respect, I think the dilemma you're proposing is neither as clear cut nor as extreme as you make it out to be.

In my experience even the best referees are going to be inconsistent at times, and most players metagame to some degree: the former is unavoidable human nature, and the latter is an artifact of playing a game.

Quote from: Benoist;291872Whether it's ignorance, laziness, vindictive behavior... this stands in the way of the actual gaming and is better adressed, in my opinion, by working these problems out at the game table (and so, building trust and cooperations between the participants of the game) rather than trust the rules to solve it (which will lead to all sorts of other problems like different interpretations of the rules, flipping pages endlessly during game sessions, framing the actions and imagination of the participants at the game table, etc etc).

I don't know if you mean for it to come across this way, but, "[T]his stands in the way of actual gaming," sounds a bit like both onetruewayism and badwrongfunning other gamers. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're referring to you personal preferences here.

With respect to the highlighted section, I think that's why having the referee-as-ultimate-arbiter is A Good Thing in roleplaying games. The role of the referee is to prevent differing interpretations and page-flipping from getting in the way of play. Here's the ruling; let's move on.

Quote from: BenoistI believe most GMs don't know or care to know how to run a game properly. THIS is the real problem.

Certainly all referees, game masters, or whatever are not created equal, but I've met very few who were indifferent to their role behind the screen.

Maybe that needs to be a different thread: how do we help game masters to be better "ultimate arbiters?"

Quote from: Benoist;292077Now you are the one who's implying I suck as a DM. Nice, rational argument you got here, jackass.
Everything's fine with my DMing, by the way. Thanks for asking.

You sure are sensitive.

Quote from: droog;292081You sure are sensitive.

You sure are a provocating prick.

PS: Seen the post of the Shaman but can't answer in detail yet.
I'll answer to it.

Quote from: Benoist;292084You sure are a provocating prick.

Man, you've spent half the thread making ad hominems (sorry, Stuart) on people who don't share your views, and then you get all pissy at one little suggestion.

Why don't you back up, admit some of us have a point, and go from there. Because really, I can feed people's medicine back to them all day, but it doesn't go anywhere.

Quote from: Seanchai;292071I agree. Moreover, how do you make someone have fun?

Apparently benevolent dictators have this rare skill.

Regards,
David R