Quote from: David R;292090Apparently benevolent dictators have this rare skill.

Always remember that a few eggs must be broken in the making of cheese souffle.

Quote from: droog;292087Why 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.

Dude, when you've got people who make a point, then I make a counterpoint, and then they aren't able to precise their thoughts or counterpoint themselves without making various types of attacks, snide remarks, faux-humor or reformulation of arguments to suit their needs and such, these aren't arguments that hold any water.

Stop being a pussy, make actual arguments, defend them without deforming my own, and THEN we can have a conversation. I'm sorry, but so far, no argument in favor of "rules over DM rulings" make any sense to me beyond the fact that a bunch of people assume the DM will suck or prove to be an ass and present the Rules as King to prevent such a thing to ever occur. And that, in itself, makes about as much sense as preemptive war and the use of torture to combat terrorists. This is not a rational argument.

Quote from: Spike;292047So: let me get this straight. If I came to your game with a working copy of the SOP of a criminal forensic search, I could reasonably expect to find almost anything without a skill check, just because I had a good procedure to follow?

If you and the group have established a good procedure and follow it, you will find most hidden things, yes.  Without a skill roll -- don't forget most of the games I run DON'T EVEN HAVE SKILLS to roll against.  Of course, just because you find a bunch of hidden/not obvious stuff at the crime scene doesn't mean you will put the clues together and solve the case. That's for player skill again.

QuoteAgain, you are missing my point.

Perhaps so, but the style of place your posts make it sound like you want isn't the style of play I run. You'd be better off in another game. I'm not trying to belittle your concerns, I'm simply pointing out that they are a different style of play than what I run. They make as little sense in my style as my way of doing things would in your style.

QuoteIf I, in real life, were to seach... lets say a child's room for stashed drugs... I might start with likely hiding places, the 'SOP' method you are advocating.... amazingly enough that might be reflected in 'knowledge of search techniques'... you know... a search skill.

Okay you can roll against your search skill (even if I have to make one up on the spot) if you play in my campaigns. It will not affect what you discover, but you can roll if it makes you feel better. Yes. I'm being annoyingly sarcastic here. That's because I see my method as producing almost the same end results as your method.  The difference seems to be that you want to roll the dice against a skill before you get the info and I'm willing to give you the info because you are looking for it.

QuoteI might also, having just walked in on 'suspicious behavior' look for things that are unexpectedly out of place... a book hastily returned to the shelf that sticks out a bit. AMAZINGLY enough the GM can't really list all the stuff that's 'out of place' without actually drawing attention to it...

QuoteWhy would I want to list all that stuff?  If you walk in on something like that and ask what you see out of place, I'll tell you what is out of place drawing attention to the important stuff that you just said you were looking for. If you don't mention it, I will not point those items out to you. The only difference between your method and mine that I can see is the fact that you want both the statement and a die roll, where all I need is the statement.

QuoteExactly my point. So... why are you not using them then?  I am at a loss here, as you are advocating NOT USING THEM!

Actually, most opf my games don't have skills. I was simply saying how I would use them if I added skills to the system for some reason.

QuoteForgive me but that seems even sadder than not RPing it out, which in my mind is sadder than rolling it (either with or without any RPing...).

It works for my campaigns and my groups -- and we consider it less of a pain than acting it out but more player skill needed than making a die roll to decide the outcome.  It may or may work well for you or other groups. However as I'm not trying to design "the one true game system" I expect all others to use, it really do not think it matters if it works well for those not in my campaigns. :confused:

I'm getting kind of psyched for upcoming diesel submarine war between Australia and Canada.

Quote from: The Shaman;292079Thanks for adding the post script, Benoist. I didn't know if you'd seen my reply, or if it was helpful or not.

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.

I totally agree. Part of the trust I was earlier talking about between players and DMs has to do with the simple realization of that fact.

Now, the premise of the "black box" dilemma is that the guessing games are prevalent, overwhelming and disruptive to the game play. If they're not, why would they be avoided? It has to be annoying to some degree. This means either one of the elements I propose got out of hand.

Quote from: The Shaman;292079I 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.

Not really, no. If the one of the elements I argue would be the source of the black box issue, and understanding that the black box would be an issue because one of these elements would get out of hand, then they would be in the way of actual gaming. If the "black box" effect doesn't get in the way of actual gaming, why adress it at all by empowering the RAW at the table?

Quote from: The Shaman;292079With 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.

Indeed.

Quote from: The Shaman;292079Certainly 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?"

Very good proposition!

Quote from: Benoist;292099Now, the premise of the "black box" dilemma is that the guessing games are prevalent, overwhelming and disruptive to the game play. If they're not, why would they be avoided? It has to be annoying to some degree. This means either one of the elements I propose got out of hand.

While I personally haven't experienced this, it certainly seems to be a factor for some, perhaps many, players.

Quote from: BenoistIf the "black box" effect doesn't get in the way of actual gaming, why adress it at all by empowering the RAW at the table?

Some people like to work the numbers when they play roleplaying games.

I know I'm one of 'em. I like having the tools to develop a character who's mechanically proficient as well as (hopefully) interesting from a roleplaying standpoint.

It's "roleplaying" and a "game" for me. These are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.

Quote from: Aos;292098I'm getting kind of psyched for upcoming diesel submarine war between Australia and Canada.

I'm rooting for the Canucks, but my money's on Oz.

Quote from: The Shaman;292108Some people like to work the numbers when they play roleplaying games.

I know I'm one of 'em. I like having the tools to develop a character who's mechanically proficient as well as (hopefully) interesting from a roleplaying standpoint.

It's "roleplaying" and a "game" for me. These are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.

I'm one of them too, for sure.
That doesn't preclude DM rulings, however.

Quote from: Benoist;292110I'm one of them too, for sure.
That doesn't preclude DM rulings, however.

Nope, not at all.

The discussion is more about why and how often.

Total agreement.
I am not advocating about DM rulings all the time.
I'm however for the basic principle that RM rulings override the rules, not the reverse.

Quote from: Benoist;292093Stop being a pussy, make actual arguments, defend them without deforming my own, and THEN we can have a conversation. I'm sorry, but so far, no argument in favor of "rules over DM rulings" make any sense to me beyond the fact that a bunch of people assume the DM will suck or prove to be an ass and present the Rules as King to prevent such a thing to ever occur. And that, in itself, makes about as much sense as preemptive war and the use of torture to combat terrorists. This is not a rational argument.

Okay, for the kids at home, this is the Players side:

1. The GM making all rulings removes a significant chunk of control from the players.
2. There are basically two ways to address this, as players; (a) learn to read the GM (b) fall back on rules.
3. This does not assume that the GM is an ass, or that the players do not trust him. It's simply a preference.


This is the GM's side:
1. Following rules is an objective procedure that can make life simpler.
2. It is difficult to remain objective, transparent, and consistent when continually overruling rules.


Now, as far as I can see, Benoist old man, your arguments boil down to:
1. It works for me.
2. It's real roleplaying.
3. People should trust the GM.
4. Everybody else must be lazy or stupid.

Quote from: droog;292123Okay, for the kids at home

1. How does that remove "power" from the players unless you have a confrontational "players vs. DM" outlook on this in the first place?
2. See black box argument we've had before.
3. If players trust the DM and the DM is both competent and not an ass, there is no black box effect destructive to game play, therefore no issue to begin with.

This is the GM's side:
1. I don't see how making a ruling on the spot is harder than refering to the rules all the time.
2. a/ I'm not advocating overruling rules all the time. I'm advocating the principle that DM rulings override rules when needed. BIG difference. b/ it is possible for a DM to be objective, transparent and consistent, and not that hard, really.

Quote from: droog;292123Now, as far as I can see, Benoist old man, your arguments boil down to:
1. It works for me.
2. It's real roleplaying.
3. People should trust the GM.
4. Everybody else must be lazy or stupid.

See? You just can't help yourself.

Quote from: David R;292090Apparently benevolent dictators have this rare skill.

Regards,
David R

Yes, we do.

The power that is manipulated by that skill resides in our Viking Hats.  

Quote from: Benoist;2921261. How does that remove "power" from the players?
2. See black box argument we've had before.
3. If players trust the DM and the DM is both competent and not an ass, there is no black box effect destructive to game play, therefore no issue to begin with.

You don't understand. There is no arguing preference. You're just repeating these assertions about the way you like to play. They are also rational, from your point of view. What you don't seem to get is that the opposing arguments are entirely rational as well.

QuoteThis is the GM's side:
1. I don't see how making a ruling on the spot is harder than refering to the rules all the time.
2. a/ I'm not advocating overruling rules all the time. I'm advocating the principle that DM rulings override rules when they come up. BIG difference. b/ it is possible for a DM to be objective, transparent and consistent, and not that hard, really.

As I said, I did for years and I found a way that works better for me. All you have to do is find a game which produces results you're happy with. Over the years I'e found various games that meet this criterion. Hence, no need to bend the rules.

QuoteSee? You just can't help yourself.

Like the taste?

And now you don't want to bring up further argumentation of your points because it is "a preference"? That's nuts. It's like saying whatever the fuck you want and then finish by saying "it's my opinion. You can't argue opinions."

Bullshit. Arguments are not rational by virtue of being "preferences". That in itself is a completely illogical allegation.