The Evolution of the "Rules over GM" movement

King of Old School · March 23, 2009, 04:16:34 PM

Quote from: Benoist;291979Sure! 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.

I don't think it's any more of a distortion than your "if you insist on making the GM play by the rules, you obviously don't trust your GM enough to play with him" argument, except that this one wasn't meant in earnest. They're both pretty equidistant from the middle, IMO.

KoOS

droog · March 23, 2009, 04:16:52 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;291890You 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.

Non sequitur

Benoist · March 23, 2009, 04:21:11 PM

I can't answer your question because it is nonsensical: that's what my post meant. Let me recap a little bit:

1/ It's the players and GM who primarily create an entertaining play experience.
Not one or the other. Both.
2/ At best, rules help create an entertaining experience. It's a tool, like a hammer to forge a blade. A hammer doesn't forge anything itself.
3/ The "tell me a story" comparison is also nonsensical, because it assumes a GM would fiat, fudge, change the outcome of things determined by the rules all the time. This is nowhere close to what I'm actually talking about.

Blackleaf · March 23, 2009, 04:22:48 PM

Quote from: Benoist;291979Sure! 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?

5 minute penalty for overused terms like strawman and ad hominem. (seriously, this site is *killing* those terms)

All kidding aside I think lots of people have just as much fun getting together with their friends and watching pro-wrestling on pay-per-view as another group of friends would if they got together to watch a football or hockey game. They're not interchangeable though, and people who are in the mood for one may not be satisfied with the other.

Benoist · March 23, 2009, 04:23:44 PM

Quote from: King of Old School;291982I don't think it's any more of a distortion than your "if you insist on making the GM play by the rules, you obviously don't trust your GM enough to play with him" argument, except that this one wasn't meant in earnest. They're both pretty equidistant from the middle, IMO.

KoOS

So instead of making all sorts of garbage arguments, why not explain to me how insisting on the GM to play by the RAW is not a sign of distrust towards him and his faculty to run the game fairly?

King of Old School · March 23, 2009, 04:25:53 PM

I think our viewpoints on what an RPG actually is, or even what this thread is actually about (i.e. the relative value of rules over GM fiat, just like it says in the thread title), are sufficiently divergent that further discussion is fruitless.

KoOS

King of Old School · March 23, 2009, 04:26:34 PM

Quote from: Benoist;291987So instead of making all sorts of garbage arguments, why not explain to me how insisting on the GM to play by the RAW is not a sign of distrust towards him and his faculty to run the game fairly?

So my question is nonsensical, but this one isn't? Riiiiight...

KoOS

Benoist · March 23, 2009, 04:28:32 PM

Quote from: King of Old School;291990So my question is nonsensical, but this one isn't? Riiiiight...

Right. I am to assume you don't have any satisfying answer to that very basic, logical question that amounts to "if you don't agree with this statement, please explain why". That is not too much to ask, I believe.

King of Old School · March 23, 2009, 04:29:36 PM

Quote from: Benoist;291991Right. I am to assume you don't have any satisfying answer to that very basic, logical question that amounts to "if you don't agree with this statement, please explain why".

Well, by your own admission that was your approach upthread. It's pretty rich for you to complain when your own tactic is turned back on you.

KoOS

counterspin · March 23, 2009, 04:29:52 PM

Because the two things can be entirely unconnected. You're the one who's positing a connection and making the assertion. We can't prove a negative.

King of Old School · March 23, 2009, 04:31:30 PM

Quote from: counterspin;291993Because the two things can be entirely unconnected. You're the one who's positing a connection and making the assertion. We can't prove a negative.

Who are you talking to?

KoOS

Benoist · March 23, 2009, 04:32:37 PM

Quote from: King of Old School;291992Well, by your own admission that was your approach upthread. It's pretty rich for you to complain when your own tactic is turned back on you.

Ah. Here we are. I have "a tactic". Okay, here's a dirty little secret for you: I don't have a "tactic". I'm not trying to "win" a debate. Since that's what you believe I'm trying to do, this is no surprise this conversation isn't leading anywhere!

King of Old School · March 23, 2009, 04:33:59 PM

Quote from: Benoist;291995Ah. Here we are. I have "a tactic". Okay, here's a dirty little secret for you: I don't have a "tactic". I'm not trying to "win" a debate. Since that's what you believe I'm trying to do, this is no surprise this conversation isn't leading anywhere!

Would you feel better if I called it a "behaviour" instead?

KoOS

Benoist · March 23, 2009, 04:37:01 PM

Not really. Point is, you're not trying to contribute anything (as in, an actual exchange of opinions). You're trying instead to make "my tactic" fail. Unless that changes, I don't know what I could say that would produce anything productive in our exchanges. I'm basically done, at this point.

Drohem · March 23, 2009, 04:37:02 PM

I guess its just a function of these types of conversations over the Internet, but it seems like people are focusing on the bookends of the spectrum.

It is not a sign of distrust by the players if they ask their GM to play by the RAW.

A GM creating House Rules for his style of play does not mean the game system is broken.

Yes, trust between the players and GM is very important, no matter the game or system.

Yes, the GM should be able to adjudicate rules on the fly, in the interest of moving the game forward, wihout an all out blitzkreig attack by the players every single time he does make a ruling.