Overall I prefer games in which the GM has plenty of power inside the rules so that he doesn't need to make shit up or fudge things to get what he wants.

For example:

1.
GM: OK, there's no rule in the books for jumping across a pit so roll a d10. High is good.
Player: OK I rolled a 10.
GM: You got across.

2.
GM: OK the rules say that you have to roll under dex to do things, this it is wide so you'll get +4 on the roll.
Player: I rolled a 4, so plus the difficulty mod of +4 that's an 8, which is under my dex of 10, so I made is across. Yay!

In both 1 and 2 the GM gets to determine how likely it is that the pit gets jumped across but in 1 he's doing it by making shit up outside of the rules and in 2 he's doing it by getting to use a specific power that's granted to him by the rules (the ability to set difficulties). I much prefer the second system in which there's a frame work and rules for how the GM gets to do things.

Basically if there's a big tention between GM power and the rules then (with certain exceptions) that's probably not the sort of game that I want to play, the GM should have plenty of power within the rules so that there's no real need to go outside of them.

tldr: I like for GMs to have power, I don't think that them being a black box is a good way of doing that.

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. 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.

What he is saying is, that the rules promote a common understanding of the way physics work between the player and the GM. ...at least enough for the player to predict whether some actions will work.

GMing is pretty much almost all I ever did throughout the 3E era (and even before), and makes up the majority of what I do now with 4E. Having those rules as a common understanding between players and GM is a huge communication bonus. Of course, I feel the same thing about using miniatures for tactical battles.

Quote from: Benoist;291770I 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.

Here's the thing - most GMs don't set out at the beginning of the game and list every last judgement call they will ever make or every little deviation from the rules they decide to do - not to mention the GM remembering every single judgement call they've ever made so they can be consistent.  People just don't do that.  For one thing, I'm not even sure that's possible.

Anyhow, here's some "black box" examples:
* If the game has a "search" skill but the GM decides that searches will be successful based on precisely how the player describes his actions - players will get pissed off.  They don't want to have to figure out exactly how precisely detailed they have to be in order for the pixel-bitching GM to not screw them over.  They'd rather just have a rule that says if they roll X, they find whatever.
* If the game has a "diplomacy" skill but the GM decides that interactions with NPCs will be successful or not based on the player's role-playing.  This also pisses players off.  They don't want to have to figure out exactly how to phrase things so the GM will react positively.

It almost always boils down to this - people don't like to play guessing games with the GM.  They want to have a reasonable expectation of how likely they are to succeed with an action.  Unfortunately, all too many GMs are not very good arbitrators and are inconsistent and overly antagonistic towards players.  They like to play games where they have a secret answers and want the players to keep guessing what it is.

So, for the vast majority of players, who do not have access to a good GM, relying on the rules is a much better option.  Because at least the rules will be consistent.

Quote from: RPGPundit;291676Players don't deserve "power". What they DO deserve is a benevolent dictator.

RPGPundit

Well said.

Quote from: jgants;291785...pixel-bitching GM

Here's my take on this subject, if the GM I'm playing with this week can be described using the above quote, or anything remotely like it, then next week I will have a new GM, or at the very least find something else to do. Otherwise, I couldn't care less whether the rules are adhered to religiously or the GM has half-designed a new game. Other than a very few brief exceptions, I have always got on well with and trusted all the folks I've gamed with, be they rules-light, or rules-heavy games. When I like and trust my GM, the rules/GM thing is really a non-issue.

Quote from: Benoist;291770I 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.

The BITS Task System for Traveller allows a referee to assign a difficulty to any task and derive an appropriate modifier to the throw for success.

A player with Vacc-2 (that is, a character who has two levels of skill in operating in a vacuum suit) wants his character to jump from one starship in space to another. The second ship is tumbling end-over-end and is surrounded by floating debris. The player asks how difficult it will be to make the leap: from my notes I've rated the task as Formidable, meaning the player will suffer a +2 penalty to the roll. I tell the player that the leap "looks pretty formidable," and the player can decide if the character tries it, rigs a tether first, fires a magnetic grapnel, and so on.

In this way both the player and I are on the same page in understanding exactly what the difficulty of the task will be. The player can make an informed choice before taking the action.

Note that this doesn't preclude telling the player, "You don't have enough information to estimate the difficulty," if the situation warrants, or for giving the player misleading information if it's appropriate. For example, a character with Computer-3 decides to hack into a system operated by a merchant factor, to access some proprietary trade data. I'll require the player to make a roll to assess the protection on the system: the degree of success tells me if the character correctly identifies how dificult the task will be. If the player rolls poorly, I might tell her that the firewall, which is rated as Formidable, appears Easy to penetrate, or Staggeringly difficult.

A "black box" referee is making up the modifiers for each task, and using similar adjectives (hopefully) to describe dificulty, but the player may never be quite sure if those adjectives mean the same thing each time. I like to give the players a little bit of "Inside Baseball," a peek behind the curtain, to better represent their characters' skills and abilities.

I find this system in particular works well on two levels. For players who like to work the numbers, it makes it easy for them to calculate the exact degree of difficulty. For those who just want to roll the dice when the referee asks them to, it provides an immersive description of the relative challenge. In my experience, this is a win-win. For someone like me who enjoys both, the BITS Task System is made of awesome.

Does that help answer the question?

Quote from: BenoistAs 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.

To the extent practicable, transparency with respect to house rules is desireable, but remember that the players won't have access to all of the information all the time: if their character is a lens on the world, and that view is incomplete or obscured, they won't necessarily be able to tell if something's working by the RAW or the house rules with which they are familiar. In this instance they do need to trust the referee not to hose their characters out-of-hand.

Quote from: KrakaJak;291656Here's an actual 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.

How true! If people where forced to GM extensively sometime after being introduced to RPGs I think there would be little need for discussions such as the one on this thread.

And KrakaJak, you might consider ditching that player and get someone else with more common sense.

Quote from: Benoist;291725The 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.

Bingo! Enough said.

Quote from: Edsan;291805How true! If people where forced to GM extensively sometime after being introduced to RPGs I think there would be little need for discussions such as the one on this thread.

Sorry, but there are at least four people with extensive GMing experience answering here who don't agree.

Quote from: droog;291807Sorry, but there are at least four people with extensive GMing experience answering here who don't agree.

I don't think there is any need to be anal and begin head-counting, I'm sure there are 4 times that number of people here who dont agree with *you*.

Notice that I did say "I think" and "Little need". I didn't mean t say that if everyone had solid GMing experience they would all magically agree in everything. Rather that being on both sides of the fence might provide some insight and erode the "GM vs. Player / Player vs. GM" mindset and teach some bitchy players to be more humble and think before they blurt.

And, might I add, if you're taking the trouble to pipe in and shout "I don't agree!" then at least justify your position so you may enlighten others. Otherwise your contribution is useless.

Quote from: Edsan;291813And, might I add, if you're taking the trouble to pipe in and shout "I don't agree!" then at least justify your position so you may enlighten others. Otherwise your contribution is useless.

I already argued for my position, and it's substantially the same argument made by jgants and Shaman. Johansen I'm not sure about....

Playing RQ in the 80s and RM in the 90s, and D&D 3e in the 00s, we were all pretty much down with "GM obeys the rules" and "dice fall where they may". We weren't into this wierd airy-fairy, story-telling, it's-my-precious-snowlflake-world bullshit. Show me in the rules and roll the dice or fuck off.

Ned

Quote from: jgants;291785Anyhow, here's some "black box" examples:
* If the game has a "search" skill but the GM decides that searches will be successful based on precisely how the player describes his actions - players will get pissed off.  They don't want to have to figure out exactly how precisely detailed they have to be in order for the pixel-bitching GM to not screw them over.  They'd rather just have a rule that says if they roll X, they find whatever.
* If the game has a "diplomacy" skill but the GM decides that interactions with NPCs will be successful or not based on the player's role-playing.  This also pisses players off.  They don't want to have to figure out exactly how to phrase things so the GM will react positively.

That's exactly how I run searches and diplomacy. I've haven't had many complaints. Of 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.

I think the players my games attract are interested in a different style of play than the one you prefer. There's nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: RandallS;291759The RPGs I choose to play state otherwise -- in their rules.

The problem of taking a quote and paring it down is when you address it, you often agree with the point of the post.

Quote from: RandallS;291759It'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.

So, again, agreeing with me? See, the point to the part you quoted was that changing rules in the midst of a session might happen, but if it is continually happening then you are more likely writing a game, not playing it. I do this quite often...when I am play testing. However, I make it clear ahead of time that I am play testing and that...you guessed it, there will be rules modifictations in the midst of the game. This, however, is not advisable if your goal is to play the game.

Now, to abridge your protests, I imagine you probably do the majority of your rules mods before or after. Not, I am not talking interpretations or "calls" but rules modifications. Things like "I don't like the way combat works, let's go diceless" not "Gee, you know, I think the short sword should have an extra attack. What do you guys think?". Also, I would bet that a lot of it comes not just from your GM but also from the players. This might not be so, but it is what I have seen.

Quote from: RandallS;291759Mine 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."

Again.

Quote from: jgants;291785Here's the thing - most GMs don't set out at the beginning of the game and list every last judgement call they will ever make or every little deviation from the rules they decide to do - not to mention the GM remembering every single judgement call they've ever made so they can be consistent.  People just don't do that.  For one thing, I'm not even sure that's possible.

Anyhow, here's some "black box" examples:
* If the game has a "search" skill but the GM decides that searches will be successful based on precisely how the player describes his actions - players will get pissed off.  They don't want to have to figure out exactly how precisely detailed they have to be in order for the pixel-bitching GM to not screw them over.  They'd rather just have a rule that says if they roll X, they find whatever.
* If the game has a "diplomacy" skill but the GM decides that interactions with NPCs will be successful or not based on the player's role-playing.  This also pisses players off.  They don't want to have to figure out exactly how to phrase things so the GM will react positively.

It almost always boils down to this - people don't like to play guessing games with the GM.  They want to have a reasonable expectation of how likely they are to succeed with an action.  Unfortunately, all too many GMs are not very good arbitrators and are inconsistent and overly antagonistic towards players.  They like to play games where they have a secret answers and want the players to keep guessing what it is.

So, for the vast majority of players, who do not have access to a good GM, relying on the rules is a much better option.  Because at least the rules will be consistent.

Excellent. Thanks, jgants. I understand much better now.

But 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. Whether 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).

NB: Saying most players don't have access to a good GM equates to saying most GMs suck. I do not believe that's true. I believe most GMs don't know or care to know how to run a game properly. THIS is the real problem. In any case, continuing to write rules to stand as the arbiter at the game table to prevent GM suckage is not going to work: it's going to make the GMs lazier. It's going to make the problem worse, not better.

PS: Thanks to the Shaman for the explanation as well. This was enlightening. I think the points I bring up here adress the same issue.

Quote from: droog;291807Sorry, but there are at least four people with extensive GMing experience answering here who don't agree.

You certainly don't count, based on your preferences. Also, nothing you say can really be trusted to be your true opinion, can it? Since you're here as an outside agitator.

RPGPundit