Quote from: Benoist;291731What reasons? Please enlighten me.

I just went through it, man. Some people don't want to spend their time playing the GM, they want to play a game.

LOL. That's why you're still posting on this thread, right? Right.

Quote from: RandallS;291730Or 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.

This is simply cant, my friend. GMs are human beings, not computers. Nobody has to be a psycho to make mistakes.

Quote from: Benoist;291733LOL. That's why you're still posting on this thread, right? Right.

Que?

I misunderstood.

Being the GM is playing the game for a GM. If a person runs a game and doesn't want to actually be a GM, then they shouldn't run a game in the first place.

Quote from: Benoist;291737I misunderstood.

Being the GM is playing the game for a GM. If a person runs a game and doesn't want to actually be a GM, then they shouldn't run a game in the first place.

I think you're mixing up 'being a GM' with the assumptions you have about how that should work.

I like GMing some games and not others, because different games give you different jobs to do.

I don't understand. Care to explain?

Firstly, I've worked out the confusion. When I said 'playing the GM', I meant learning to read the GM's personal cues until you know how he will react. Does that sort that bit out?

Oh. I see. Yes, I think it's helpful to some degree.

Isn't that what normal people do when they are in a room together for a few hours at a time, though? I mean, whether you want it or not, that's what happens in any case. Playing an RPG is actual social interaction in the context of make-believe. If it isn't, then what else could it possibly be? Not an RPG, I would believe.

Quote from: Benoist;291742Oh. I see. Yes, I think it's helpful to some degree.

Isn't that what normal people do when they are in a room together for a few hours at a time, though? I mean, whether you want it or not, that's what happens in any case. Playing an RPG is actual social interaction in the context of make-believe. If it isn't, then what else could it possibly be? Not an RPG, I would believe.

Yes, that's very true. But there are many ways in which social interaction, make-believe and rules can interact. The GM black box is only one.

Quote from: jgants;291637I'd say it goes back pretty much to the beginning of RPGs.  

This. I have heard the "GM should play by the same rules" argument in my stores in the 90s, in game stores in the 80s, and amongst gaming groups in the 70s. The argument is based on very solid reasoning. You are playing a game. A game is a series of rules. The GM is meant to be an interpreter, or an arbiter of those rules not a supernumerary above the rules.

Opposed to this argument is a stance of the GM as the one who introduces or discards rules to make a game fit the playstyle of the group. I do not know that this type of thing is ever really a solid idea in the midst of a session.

The conflict arises when either side is expressed in absolutes. "I am God, GM, fear me" is as unrealistic as "I will play every game RAW". The former would lose players like no ones business while the former would, at best, be playing some interpretation of the RAW. Now, as poles for determining how far one is from either side your playstyle is, well, that might be useful.

Quote from: HinterWelt;291751This. I have heard the "GM should play by the same rules" argument in my stores in the 90s, in game stores in the 80s, and amongst gaming groups in the 70s. The argument is based on very solid reasoning. You are playing a game. A game is a series of rules. The GM is meant to be an interpreter, or an arbiter of those rules not a supernumerary above the rules.

I'd agree to the extent that rules have to be known from the get-go and modifications of the rules have to be the result of a consensus between the players of the game (including the GM). They don't have to be RAW, though. If the GM supercedes the rules, this has to be known and agreed to from the start as well. If there are home rules, these should be known from the start as well. If rules are changed, this should be known and agreed to between sessions.

Really, it's all based on the agreement of everyone around the table, which rejoins your final argument that absolutes are bad in any case. I totally agree with this.

I suspect that this whole argument of "the GM should play by the same rules" actually means "we don't trust the GM to rule fairly and intelligently". If that trust is there, there's no need for rules overriding GM rulings, and no need for arguments between players and GM.

I feel it would be much better for plenty of gaming groups, and the hobby at large really, if the participants thrived to achieve a level of trust and understanding between each other rather than thrive to abide by the RAW at every turn.

Quote from: HinterWelt;291751The GM is meant to be an interpreter, or an arbiter of those rules not a supernumerary above the rules.

The RPGs I choose to play state otherwise -- in their rules.

QuoteOpposed to this argument is a stance of the GM as the one who introduces or discards rules to make a game fit the playstyle of the group. I do not know that this type of thing is ever really a solid idea in the midst of a session.

It's worked well for me for over 30 years. Perhaps I'm very unusual -- but I really, really doubt it.

I think it's a playstyle choice. So long as the people at the table are aware of the GM's position on the authority of RPG rules, there is seldom any real problem. Unless they come to the table determined to change the way the GM does things or the GM is an ass. In either of those two cases, however, the real problem is not the authority of the game rules.

QuoteThe conflict arises when either side is expressed in absolutes. "I am God, GM, fear me" is as unrealistic as "I will play every game RAW".

Mine is very simple. "RPG rules may be the "law" we start from but as GM I'm Congress and the Supreme Court. That is, they are just guidelines subject to my revision and interpretation. You, however, can play President and veto things -- by voting with your feet if you wish."

Quote from: Benoist;291755I suspect that this whole argument of "the GM should play by the same rules" actually means "we don't trust the GM to rule fairly and intelligently". If that trust is there, there's no need for rules overriding GM rulings, and no need for arguments between players and GM.

I disagree.

The rules describe the physics (and perhaps some of the metaphysics) of how the game-universe works. Keeping to the rules gives the players the opportunity to make informed decisions for their characters based on this knowledge of the "laws" of the game-universe. This avoids the "black box" effect that I believe droog alluded to one of the two threads on this topic. It eliminates a lot of pointless trial-and-error; it is the common foundation upon which the referee builds the game-world, and the common language with which the characters interact with that world.

And this is my choice as the referee;"trusting the GM" is not a factor.

It's been mentioned already, but I think it bears repeating: some games are much "lighter" with what the rules cover, automatically leaving more to the referee to decide. This makes it a bit trickier to talk in absolutes, since one system will inherently leave more to the referee to adjudicate than another.

For myself, I'm more comfortable with relatively rules-light games than with rules-heavy systems: I like a rule set that covers the essentials, and leaves the rest to the collective judgement of the referee (the ultimate arbiter of the rules and that which is not covered by the rules) and the players (who can leave if the ultimate arbiter has his head up his ass).

I really wish you would give me some practical example of the "black box" effect you guys are talking about. You're speaking of "trials and errors". I just don't understand this. What are you talking about, specifically? Give me examples so I can understand what you're talking about.

As for the premise of the rules describing how the milieu works, I totally agree. But these rules do not have to be the RAW. They can be rules (variants, tweaks, house rules, however you want to call it) determined by the GM up front. So long as the players can indeed make informed decisions from the get-go, I don't really see where the problem is.