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.

Bravo, Aos! Barvo!

-clash

Quote from: An actual Player"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."

Takes away what little control he has over the game, heh? That player forgets he has a character and can do whatever the fuck he wants with this character in the game. He also forgets that he has his brains to work with, and a little something called "imagination". He might also forget that this is not a contest between him and me, GM, to "control" anything. It's about entertaining ourselves through the game's make-believe.

If a player started by telling me "all he has is the rules", I certainly would throw him an odd look. That means there's definitely something out of place in the way that guy perceives RPGs to begin with, IMO.

Quote from: Benoist;291716Takes away what little control he has over the game, heh? That player forgets he has a character and can do whatever the fuck he wants with this character in the game.

But all that the character is or can be must be filtered through the GM in your model.

Quote from: LeSquide;291685You deserve only death.

21 in 1985, baby. Those were the days.

Quote from: droog;291718But all that the character is or can be must be filtered through the GM in your model.

In many ways, yes. I think that's actually the role of the GM: to ensure that the game unfolds in a way that entertaining for all the people participating in it. That includes filtering actions of the players on a case by case basis.

Now, I actually just posted elsewhere that I do not mean "rules are useless". That's just not true. Rules help create a basic sense of cooperation at the game table and give ways for players to look at the world and understand how it works. They are not some sort of arbiter between the GM and players, however, and certainly not a weapon players can wield against a GM.

The GM can modify, alter, change the rules whenever necessary, with the premise and understanding that this will affect the basic compact at the game table (and this can be very damaging to the game indeed). So the GM has to do so carefully, make the point that he is in control up front, and not work "against" the players but with them (meaning listening to feedback, be fair and mindful, et cetera). That's the point of RPGs, really.

Quote from: Benoist;291721In many ways, yes. I think that's actually the role of the GM: to ensure that the game unfolds in a way that entertaining for all the people participating in it. That includes filtering actions of the players on a case by case basis.

After 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.

But anyway, from the player's point of view, then, he has no control because you (the GM) have the ultimate say in how the chr's actions go down. So he clings to what he can, i.e. rules.

Quote from: droog;291722But anyway, from the player's point of view, then, he has no control because you (the GM) have the ultimate say in how the chr's actions go down. So he clings to what he can, i.e. rules.

Untrue. That would be like saying that you can't walk down the street and get drunk in a bar because that's against the law, or copy a movie on your hard drive, and so on, so forth. Or go from A to point B because a cop could potentially stop you and put you under arrest, etc.

It assumes that the GM always says "no" at every turn. The GM lets players have some measure of control on the game milieu, or there's actually no point in playing the game at all. The players, through the actions of their characters, their own wits, intelligence, character abilities, etc do have a measure of control over the game milieu. The GM, however, has the power to say "no" - doesn't mean he does so at every turn, like a moron with a bully pulpit, without any consideration of the effect it has on the players' enjoyment on the game - but he does have that right.

Quote from: Benoist;291723Untrue. That would be like saying that you can't walk down the street and get drunk in a bar because that's against the law, or copy a movie on your hard drive, and so on, so forth.

It assumes that the GM always says "no" at every turn.

No, I'm not assuming that. But picture this: the GM is a black box. You put data in, something mysterious happens, and data comes out. The process by which the output is derived is opaque. Thus, the only way to have any meaningful input is through rules OR by knowing the GM really well.

I'm trying to illustrate to you how it's a rational decision to prioritise rules, both from GM's and players' points-of-view.

I guess I don't see the rationality of your argument.

The basic premise of participating in a role-playing game is to trust the GM to do his job right, and for the GM, it's to trust the players to try to participate in the game rather than wreck it. If I don't have that to begin with, there's no point for me to be at the table at all, as a player or GM, so your whole "opaque" thing just doesn't work out for me. If I trust the GM, I trust the GM. As a character in the game milieu, "I" am not supposed to understand everything about how the world works, what opponents I'm facing, etc... mystery is part of the deal, wouldn't you think?

PS: Interesting, by the way, to see the way you actually quoted my post and the part you left out.
Do you agree with the part you left out?

Quote from: Benoist;291725I guess I don't see the rationality of your argument.

The basic premise of participating in a role-playing is to trust the GM to do his job right, and for the GM, it's to trust the players to try to participate in the game rather than wrecking it. If I don't have that to begin with, there's no point for me to be at the table at all, as a player or GM, so your whole "opaque" thing just doesn't work out for me. If I trust the GM, I trust the GM. As a character in the game milieu, "I" am not supposed to understand everything about how the world works, what opponents I'm facing, etc... mystery is part of the deal, wouldn't you think?

No, I think you're begging the question and assuming that your preferences are the core of RPGs. I like RPGs but I find many of those assumptions wearisome. If you like them, that's cool, but I might not play in your game.

I'm saying that if a lot of people are preferring the rules to GM fiat, there's probably some good reasons for it (beyond 'players are sulky bastards').

Quote from: Benoist;291725PS: Interesting, by the way, to see the way you actually quoted my post and the part you left out.
Do you agree with the part you left out?

I answered that.

Okay. That's just not what I'm saying, but that's okay.

What are you saying then?

Quote from: droog;291724No, I'm not assuming that. But picture this: the GM is a black box. You put data in, something mysterious happens, and data comes out. The process by which the output is derived is opaque. Thus, the only way to have any meaningful input is through rules OR by knowing the GM really well.

Or by simply looking at the campaign world which, unless you are playing something like Tekumel or Jorune, is probably a pretty standard fantasy world where most things work like one would expect them to in a fantasy world. If you look at the campaign world through your character's eyes and just tell the GM what your character is doing (and let the GM worry about the rules), chances are you will manage just fine -- at least as well as if you were actually there. Now this assumes that you don't have a "killer GM" -- but I can't imagine any reason to play with such a person.

Quote from: droog;291726I'm saying that if a lot of people are preferring the rules to GM fiat, there's probably some good reasons for it (beyond 'players are sulky bastards').

What reasons? Please enlighten me.

Quote from: droog;291729What are you saying then?

Already answered that. Now that's your turn to explain yourself.