Quote from: RPGPundit;291630As with most things that have gone horribly wrong in gaming, the ultimate blame for all this comes from the Storytelling/White Wolf Swine.

This has nothing to do with an overreaction to White Wolf,Forge, etc.

This has to do with the fact that the majority of feedback is coming from people who participate regularly in living campaigns and convention tournament. And results from the need to have standardized rules for these play formats.

This results in a game less suitable (i.e. takes more work) for normal home tabletop play. Because the game is less of "this is how you build your fantasy world" toolkit. The biggest sign of this issue is the high fantasy over the top feel to the classes and powers.

The game system itself works nicely and has a lot of potential. It may not be D&D but it is a fun game. But the presentation of high fantasy 24/7 can leave many unsatisfied over the long run. With the new GSL license more 3rd parties may jump in to make 4e a more diverse system.

Quote from: HinterWelt;291859Now, 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?".

In general, if I know the rules are going to be a problem, I've rewritten them well in advance of the players needing them.  However, I'll rewrite overly-complex/unworkable for my group rules discovered in play on the fly.  Let's say I was running a 3.x game (which I don't normally do) and some player decided their character wanted to trip someone and this was the first time we encountered the tripping rules. Just as I'm about to use my normal tripping rules, a player points out that 3.x has rules for that. I flip open the book and quickly decide that the RAW are overly complex. I'll replace them on the spot. "No, I have neither the time or interest for those rules. Roll to hit. [Player's character hits. I make a saving roll for the target.] Your target failed his DEX save and trips. He's prone."

QuoteAlso, 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.

It's very hard to say. The way I GM is well known. Players who expect RAW generally never try my games. I usually avoid playing in games ran by GMs who want to play RAW.

Players in my games do often suggest new rules which I'm usually willing to try -- and long as they either make things less complex or add more "realism" without increasing complexity much.  Take the "trip" example above. If a player did not like my solution, he'd probably try to come up with an alternative rule he thought better over the next few weeks and we'd likely give it a try.

In my case it is not so much the "GM is God" as the "Rules are just guidelines for the GM." My job as GM is to a) present challenges to players AND b) to do my best to make sure we all have some fun. Both are equally important. Playing RAW isn't even on my chart of "things needed to have a good game."

Quote from: RandallS;291826That'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.

.

The trouble I have, particularly with the first skill (search) being handled... your way... is that I, as a player, can not see what I, the character, does. This severely hampers my (the Player) ability to conduct a through search of any given area.  It comes down to a matter of communication, as the GM may feel he's given me 'adequate' information to conduct a search without rolling dice while I missed, or was never told (either is equally likely in my expirence on both sides of the table...), whatever vital aspect of the landscape holds whatever clue I need to find.

So, unless you are one hell of an artist with plenty of time on your hand to draw out the scenes where I am likely to use the search skill its rather hard to insist that I simply 'roleplay out' the search when there is a perfectly valid skill and a damn good reason to use it.


My trouble with the second skill being handled all RP is only slightly different.  Yes, I can certainly RP out an entire conversation with the GM rather than make diplomacy checks, and most people would be cool with that.  Hell, I've done it that way on both sides of the table myself.

The problem is that eventually it becomes a formality. All characters react to the exact same sort of conversations, have the same tells and so forth. The GM is not the worlds greatest method actor, and a great deal of social interaction (particularly at the high end where high level PC's tend to hang out...) is based in reading individuals and responding as much to non-verbal cues as they are to verbal.  The GM is often completely unable to provide those non-verbal cues, or provide only the barest amount.

Too many times I've interrupted a perfectly good, but VITAL, conversation with the GM to try and get a read on the NPC I'm 'bluffing' or 'diplomancying' to find out 'how' I'm doing. The GM often won't answer me (depending...) leaving me wondering why I bothered putting points in the skill at all, and in games where there is no skill, or it's useless, I won't often bother with attempting 'difficult' social interaction because its either 'notionally difficult', where the outcome is predetermined by the GM, or so frustratingly vague in resolution that I'd much rather commence with the killing and save everyone the frustration.

Me?

I blame modules.

Many of the modules were convention sessions, designed to create a WINNER.  The easiest way to do that was to make them a killing ground.  Victory goes to the team whose corpses land furthest from the entrance.

That is NOT what Greyhawk was like, nor Blackmoor.  But if you started playing as a youngster and that was your only model, it would be easy to think that that is HOW the GM is supposed to run things.

Now implant this idea into adolescent and preadolescent boys, often with even more marginal social skills than usual, and you get a recipie for simmering feelings of "unfairness".

Yes, I've encountered a LOT of shitass GMs over the years.  However, my answer has always been "You're an assmonkey and my feet work."

A lot of people apparently don't have the gumption to do this.  I've seen this as far back as the early 80s.  David Hargraves said on camera, in an interview with Dave Arneson, "A good game is where I make at least one young player cry".

Some people are jerks.  Film at 11.  In other news, water wet, sky blue.

What amazes me is why anybody played more than one game under those circumstances.

Nonetheless, everything I've ever read about "GNS" makes me want to say "Show us on the doll where the GM touched your character in a bad way."

You can't codify non-asshole behavior.

Quote from: RandallS;291907In general, if I know the rules are going to be a problem, I've rewritten them well in advance of the players needing them.  However, I'll rewrite overly-complex/unworkable for my group rules discovered in play on the fly.  Let's say I was running a 3.x game (which I don't normally do) and some player decided their character wanted to trip someone and this was the first time we encountered the tripping rules. Just as I'm about to use my normal tripping rules, a player points out that 3.x has rules for that. I flip open the book and quickly decide that the RAW are overly complex. I'll replace them on the spot. "No, I have neither the time or interest for those rules. Roll to hit. [Player's character hits. I make a saving roll for the target.] Your target failed his DEX save and trips. He's prone."

That is not rewriting the rules in my opinion. That is dropping a complex rule for a different, established, simpler rule. The framework for rolling to hit exists. The framework for making a stat save exists. You just said "Meh. I don't like this rule, I will use a related one." You did not take, say, the rules for spell casting, rewrote them to handle free form casting.

Either way, I would still group your approach on the spectrum I described earlier.

Quote from: RandallS;291907It's very hard to say. The way I GM is well known. Players who expect RAW generally never try my games. I usually avoid playing in games ran by GMs who want to play RAW.

Players in my games do often suggest new rules which I'm usually willing to try -- and long as they either make things less complex or add more "realism" without increasing complexity much.  Take the "trip" example above. If a player did not like my solution, he'd probably try to come up with an alternative rule he thought better over the next few weeks and we'd likely give it a try.

In my case it is not so much the "GM is God" as the "Rules are just guidelines for the GM." My job as GM is to a) present challenges to players AND b) to do my best to make sure we all have some fun. Both are equally important. Playing RAW isn't even on my chart of "things needed to have a good game."

And to me, this is all fine. I think you are seeing a categorization that is not there. Sorry if it was confusing.

Quote from: Old Geezer;291928Me?

I blame modules.

Many of the modules were convention sessions, designed to create a WINNER.  The easiest way to do that was to make them a killing ground.  Victory goes to the team whose corpses land furthest from the entrance.

That is NOT what Greyhawk was like, nor Blackmoor.  But if you started playing as a youngster and that was your only model, it would be easy to think that that is HOW the GM is supposed to run things.

Now implant this idea into adolescent and preadolescent boys, often with even more marginal social skills than usual, and you get a recipie for simmering feelings of "unfairness".

Yes, I've encountered a LOT of shitass GMs over the years.  However, my answer has always been "You're an assmonkey and my feet work."

A lot of people apparently don't have the gumption to do this.  I've seen this as far back as the early 80s.  David Hargraves said on camera, in an interview with Dave Arneson, "A good game is where I make at least one young player cry".

Some people are jerks.  Film at 11.  In other news, water wet, sky blue.

What amazes me is why anybody played more than one game under those circumstances.

Nonetheless, everything I've ever read about "GNS" makes me want to say "Show us on the doll where the GM touched your character in a bad way."

You can't codify non-asshole behavior.

I think that OG has touched upon something here about modules.  I became disenchanted with AD&D fairly early on in my gaming career because of the very situation he describes.  My original AD&D DM died shortly after we started playing (tragic plane crash), and I started playing with some other friends in high school.  The DM only ran modules, read boxed text verbatim, and didn't deviate from the module.  Also, he became flustered when we tried to think outside of the module, or do something out of the scope of the module.

Quote from: Drohem;291958The DM only ran modules, read boxed text verbatim, and didn't deviate from the module.  Also, he became flustered when we tried to think outside of the module, or do something out of the scope of the module.

What you are describing here is what turned me off of RPGA style convention play.

Yup. Old Geezer is actually on to something with the modules.

It's kind of interesting to see that it would all boil down to a bunch of bastard-DMs and poor designers.

Holy fuck, this thread and the one just like it are just begging to be cited under the dictionary definiton for "Excluded Middle."  Anyways...

Quote from: BenoistI 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.

Well if we're going to play Exclude the Middle here, I'd ask why, if you don't trust the rules to produce a fun play experience without unrestrained GM fiat, do you bother even playing the game as a game in the first place?  Why not just sit around and play Tell Me a Story?

Oh, and...

Quote from: RPGPunditPlayers don't deserve "power". What they DO deserve is a benevolent dictator.

Why the fuck would anybody choose to spend their recreational time with anyone who felt the desire to assert themselves over others as a dictator, "benevolent" or otherwise?  I may not be able to avoid people with NPD in my professional life, but I'm not about to piss away my fun time with such people willingly...

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;291966Holy fuck, this thread and the one just like it are just begging to be cited under the dictionary definiton for "Excluded Middle."  Anyways...

KoOS

You must be new, so let me be the first to welcome you to teh Intarwebz....

Quote from: Spike;291921The trouble I have, particularly with the first skill (search) being handled... your way... is that I, as a player, can not see what I, the character, does. This severely hampers my (the Player) ability to conduct a through search of any given area.  It comes down to a matter of communication, as the GM may feel he's given me 'adequate' information to conduct a search without rolling dice while I missed, or was never told (either is equally likely in my expirence on both sides of the table...), whatever vital aspect of the landscape holds whatever clue I need to find.

Perhaps this isn't much of a problem in my games because I don't work pixel by pixel.  The players normally quickly develop a standard search procedure, and after a while, that SOP search will find most normally hidden things if they take the time needed to follow it (which can be a problem if the area is large and time is limited). Really well-hidden things is another story -- unless you happen to specifically search in the right area the right way, you probably will not find it. This is the way it works in the real world too. Some things have remained hidden for years despite careful searches. Heck, POWs in Colditz during WWII managed to build a full-sized GILDER and kept it hidden from daily German searches.

A skill roll might help you know the most likely places to search (for normal hidden things) if you have limited time and a large area to search. If you carefully study an area for a long time (days, week, months), a skill roll might even help you think of places to search for the really hidden stuff (if any).

QuoteMy trouble with the second skill being handled all RP is only slightly different.  Yes, I can certainly RP out an entire conversation with the GM rather than make diplomacy checks, and most people would be cool with that.  Hell, I've done it that way on both sides of the table myself.

I don't require players to ACT OUT the negotiations (unless they want to or or we are playing "UN" where negotiation is the main aspect of the campaign). Instead they have to make and respond to specific offers. They cannot just roll a die to get their way. They have to actually come to an agreement with the other party. Again, they don't have to act out the negotiations in character, but they do have to actually come up with proposals, consider counterproposals, watch out for tricky proposals, etc. A skill roll doesn't substitute for any for that.  A skill roll might help you learn what types of offers the target might be most interested in or evaluate how well you are doing, however.

Quote from: King of Old School;291966Well if we're going to play Exclude the Middle here, I'd ask why, if you don't trust the rules to produce a fun play experience without unrestrained GM fiat, do you bother even playing the game as a game in the first place?  Why not just sit around and play Tell Me a Story?

Rules don't produce anything. At best, they help create an entertaining play experience. If they do, I will use these rules. If they don't, I will use other rules. All shades in-between are obviously possibilities as well.

If there are no rules to help create a good play experience for the idea I got in mind, then I come up with them. If I was unable to come up with appropriate rules, we'd end up playing something else, I guess.

Fortunately, with the zillions of game systems available out there and the use of my own little gray cells, the question was never raised in such terms.

This discussion makes me think of the differences between Sports and Sports Entertainment.

QuoteSports entertainment is a type of spectacle which presents an ostensibly competitive event using a high level of theatrical flourish and extravagant presentation, with the purpose of entertaining an audience. Unlike typical athletics and games, which are conducted for competition, sportsmanship, exercise or personal recreation, the primary product of sports entertainment is performance for an audience's benefit, thus they are never practiced privately. Commonly, but not in all cases, the outcomes are predetermined (such cases are not considered to be fixed, however, as it is an open secret). Events which fall under the classification of sports entertainment are widely considered to be low brow forms of entertainment.

RPEs?

Sure! Now that we're through discussing the actual topic, it's time to pull your strawman arguments, interpret other people's post to the extreme, twist and turn until you can actually make fun of people you disagree with, right?

Seriously, I appreciate the joke and all, but that doesn't bring anything to the actual conversation at this point, with the huge, opposite potential of derailing it.

Quote from: Benoist;291973Rules don't produce anything. At best, they help create an entertaining play experience. If they do, I will use these rules. If they don't, I will use other rules. All shades in-between are obviously possibilities as well.

If there are no rules to help create a good play experience for the idea I got in mind, then I come up with them. If I was unable to come up with appropriate rules, we'd end up playing something else, I guess.

Fortunately, with the zillions of game systems available out there and the use of my own little gray cells, the question was never raised in such terms.

This, while an interesting quote, doesn't actually answer the question I asked... unless I'm to understand that it's the GM and his fiat that creates the entertaining play experience.  That hews a little too close to Tell Me a Story for my tastes (I like my games to be actual games), but YMMV obviously.

KoOS