KOOS : I was talking to Benoist.  There's lots of reasons I would ask a GM to play stuff by RAW.  Firstly, I don't see it as much of a restriction.  Monster creation, treasure placement, DCs for things not set by the books, there's still a huge amount of latitude there.  Second, there is a lot of ground between things which are fair and things which are a good idea.  Thirdly, there's lots of things that you could do fairly with RAW which I would be interested in, in most cases.  Trust can play into it, but it certainly doesn't have to.

Quote from: Benoist;291999Not really. Point is, you're not trying to contribute anything (as in, an actual exchange of opinions).

That you're too fucking thick to see an obvious point doesn't make the point any less real.  But no, you'd rather be willfully obtuse and pedantic, dodge the question, and then bitch when treated in kind.

Fuck off, you dishonest little cunt.

KoOS

*golf claps*

See, if you guys had had some rules to follow, this unfortunate incident could have been avoided.

Quote from: Old Geezer;291928I blame modules.

See, that's balls in my case. I ran the modules by the rules (as much as I could). Then I went to RQ, gradually eased into a black box method of GMing, and gradually got weary of it. I had people willing to play my games all along the way.

I've made my arguments, other people have made their arguments, and guys like you just keep going back to these sorts of attacks instead of dealing with the arguments.

How the hell was that an attack?

Quote from: RPGPundit;291630It seems to me that the whole idea that the GM must be bound to the RPG system he's running, and that players can DEMAND that the GM obey the rules and prove he's doing so, is an idea that is increasingly being pushed, particularly now with 4e essentially subscribing to this (but as an idea it was already being pushed somewhat back in 3.5).

Dude, no.

3e had the DM making monsters and NPC using the chargen rules for PCs.  As much as I dislike 3e, there was nothing in those books that forced me to run the game in a certain way.  Even CR was a guideline.

As for 4e, RPGA has specifically gone out of its way to make LFR DMs empowered to alter the adventure to make the game the most fun for himself and his players.

Also 4e abandoned the concept that NPCs and monsters must be built like PCs.  There is NOTHING in the 4e books about the players being able to force the DM to do anything.   4e's biggest DMG sin is they recommend that the DM find out what the players enjoy most and focus the game on that playstyle.    And yes, that could lead the DM to becoming a Monty Haul treasure fairy who coddles the players.   We had those guys too in the 70s.

Quote from: RPGPundit;291630Now, obviously, the big proponents of this idea of "we can use System to force the GM to do what we want" comes from the Forge, where their goal at all times seems to be the neutering of the GM.

I saw this attitude in AD&D 1e.  Maybe the Forge codified it into certain RPGs, but it's not new.

Quote from: jgants;291637If you codify rules, players will expect the GM to follow those rules.

True.

Quote from: Aos;291655We could print rule 0 on the front cover of every game out there, or have Jessica Alba show up at the session with it stamped on her naked tits,  and the guys who make trouble over this shit would still be there.

But who'd notice their whining?   We'd all be watching Jessica.

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

I vehemently argue against this point if I wasn't nodding my head and smiling.

Quote from: The Shaman;291801To 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.

I fully agree.

That's why I don't play with deaf mutes or those who have vows of silence.   Back and forth GM / player communication is essential to make the game fun for everyone.  

Quote from: Old Geezer;291928Victory goes to the team whose corpses land furthest from the entrance.

I love D&D tourneys but that is a hysterical definition that is too true in many cases!  Certainly S1 Tomb of Horrors was often considered what a dungeon should be.

Quote from: Old Geezer;291928David Hargraves said on camera, in an interview with Dave Arneson, "A good game is where I make at least one young player cry".

Arduin, bloody Arduin!

Quote from: Spinachcat;292039I love D&D tourneys but that is a hysterical definition that is too true in many cases!  Certainly S1 Tomb of Horrors was often considered what a dungeon should be.

I wouldn't have it any other way either. When played in a tourney like it should be, it's totally cool for it and others like it) to be a killer dungeon... we're not taking the PCs with us, it's not going to affect the characters we've invested time and thought into, so why not make it a horror movie? That was a major part of the fun when we used to play them during our over-night events at the Boys Club back in the day. It basically empowered us to male stupid choices and go balls-out in an adventure... loads of fun.

Quote from: Spinachcat;292039I love D&D tourneys but that is a hysterical definition that is too true in many cases!  Certainly S1 Tomb of Horrors was often considered what a dungeon should be.

Sadly true.

S1 is a fun dungeon for very high level characters that I still use once in a while today. However, it's a horrible example of how to design a dungeon for regular play. Dungeons are met to be fun "alien worlds" to explore, not one instant death trap after another.  I have no real problem with "save or die" effects, either (as one might guess given the D&D editions I most enjoy), but save-or-die effects don't belong in every ten foot section of the average dungeon.

S1 was a great "very dangerous tomb" adventure, but it taught a lot of new GMs the wrong things as they thought is was an example of how the average dungeon was supposed to be designed.  Sadly, this is what comes from tournament dungeons as examples, so I have to agree with Old Geezer that modules ruined a lot of GMs.

Quote from: RandallS;292041Sadly true.

S1 is a fun dungeon for very high level characters that I still use once in a while today. However, it's a horrible example of how to design a dungeon for regular play. Dungeons are met to be fun "alien worlds" to explore, not one instant death trap after another.  I have no real problem with "save or die" effects, either (as one might guess given the D&D editions I most enjoy), but save-or-die effects don't belong in every ten foot section of the average dungeon.

S1 was a great "very dangerous tomb" adventure, but it taught a lot of new GMs the wrong things as they thought is was an example of how the average dungeon was supposed to be designed.  Sadly, this is what comes from tournament dungeons as examples, so I have to agree with Old Geezer that modules ruined a lot of GMs.

You have a point I suppose too, I'm lucky I never had that problem with any GMs I've played with, but I could see it's potential. S1 is definitely best kept as a tournament thing ideally.

Quote from: Spinachcat;292039Certainly S1 Tomb of Horrors was often considered what a dungeon should be.

This. It's true. It was sort of a "cool thing" between DMs to consider Tomb Horrors the epitomy of what dungeon crawls should play like. Oh so very wrong...

Quote from: RandallS;291969Perhaps 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.

So: let me get this straight. If I came to your game with a working copy of the SOP of a criminal forensic search, I could reasonably expect to find almost anything without a skill check, just because I had a good procedure to follow?

Again, you are missing my point.  If I, in real life, were to seach... lets say a child's room for stashed drugs... I might start with likely hiding places, the 'SOP' method you are advocating.... amazingly enough that might be reflected in 'knowledge of search techniques'... you know... a search skill.  I might also, having just walked in on 'suspicious behavior' look for things that are unexpectedly out of place... a book hastily returned to the shelf that sticks out a bit. AMAZINGLY enough the GM can't really list all the stuff that's 'out of place' without actually drawing attention to it... and amazingly enough, a 'search check' can also cover for not having every last little detail that an ordinary person might have a chance to spot.

QuoteA 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).

Exactly my point. So... why are you not using them then?  I am at a loss here, as you are advocating NOT USING THEM!

QuoteI 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.

Forgive me but that seems even sadder than not RPing it out, which in my mind is sadder than rolling it (either with or without any RPing...).

Not to mention far more limited than, you know, actual diplomacy. Its reduced the entire endeavor into bickering over the price of kumquats.

Really?  I thought people all understood that Tomb of Horrors was the most extreme "Deathtrap Dungeon" and not typical of what a dungeon crawl was supposed to be like. None of the other modules were anywhere close to being that lethal.

We all knew to roll up one-shot characters for S1 and knew they'd more than likely get killed during the game.

Quote from: Benoist;292045This. It's true. It was sort of a "cool thing" between DMs to consider Tomb Horrors the epitomy of what dungeon crawls should play like. Oh so very wrong...

This may be true, but what about modules like The Village of Hommlet? It has a dungeon, but over half of it is a NPC stocked role-playing opportunity of the village itself. Even back then it looks like there was more than one playstyle being supported.

I dunno, can we get some commentary on Hommlet from Old Geezer and see where that fit in the module parade if we can?

I guess at some point, to some DMs, it was cool to show that you had those petty little bastards of PCs under control. Telling stories about horrifying traps, thunder falling from the sky onto characters of unrespectful players, how you TPK'd a group of morons going through that dungeon... It's true.

I never liked that attitude. I never ever ran games like this, but I sure knew DMs who were showing off like this in cons and associations.

I really come to believe this is what's done the most damage as to the topic at hand.