It 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).
Now, 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.
But while the Forge Swine are huge proponents of this concept, it is clearly not an idea that is limited to their ranks; and part of the reason that they've had a great deal more success pushing this notion than most of their other idiotic ideas was because there really are a lot of gamers out there who seem to feel that its "good" to be able to make the rules matter more than the GM.
As with most things that have gone horribly wrong in gaming, the ultimate blame for all this comes from the Storytelling/White Wolf Swine. Obviously, they do NOT subscribe to this theory. That's the problem, they had another, equally stupid motto: "system doesn't matter". In other words, the GM telling his story (or the WW sourcebook "author's" story) is all that matters, and you can outright ignore the system completely, because really who cares about stupid mechanics except those unwashed players who should be grateful to get to sit and watch you "create a story" with your brilliant acting.
So that was the stupid, stupid fucking idea; that lead to a bunch of pissed off people embracing another idea that's just as stupid which is essentially "GMs must be controlled".
RPGPundit
I'd say it goes back pretty much to the beginning of RPGs.
Pretty much every game and edition began to codify more and more things after the initial versions/books of OD&D, Runequest, and/or Traveller. If you codify rules, players will expect the GM to follow those rules.
Failing that, I'd say a lot of the attitude started way back when as a backlash to the bad DMs in ye olde days who decided that they should be antagonstic to the PCs. The ones who thought that Gygax's tournament dungeons represented how the game should be regularly played. The viking hat wearers.
As a GM, I study the system and my intent is always to follow the rules. If during the session I need to make a call about a crap rule, I ask the players how they feel about changing the rule from X to Y, most will agree and we move on.
I honestly haven't had to all that much, and I also prefer intuitive system mechanics, like L5R and Tri-Stat, where making a call about a specific situation is easier than remembering a thousand exception rules from other systems...
So yeah, I follow the rules, but I let the rules be the tool too.
Let's throw MMOs and CRPGs into the mix too since they force the player among a given path and they condition people to think a certain way.:)
I agree with jgants. I think that one basic idea is that bit by bit the D&D game evolved from being DM-centric in terms of rules to, later, have specific offerings to players (this became significant with AD&D2, the Complete series, character kits and so on). 3rd ed and 4th ed are actually the natural evolution of this original concept from 2nd ed (which I guess was originally inspired by ICE's Rolemaster, a competitor at the time).
This isn't the only element in this evolution, of course. There are actually many DMs who believe they actually read the rules of the AD&D game, in particular, but never read the 1st ed DMG cover to cover. In other words, they know the rules, the tables, but never cared to truly understand the underlying gaming intent behind these rules.
Same thing goes for the 3rd ed DMG, by the way.
Another factor is what jgants was talking about: I call it the "Unearthed Arcana" factor, that is, the further codification of the game, and moreover, the addition of optional variants to the core that led players coming to game tables to ask "what rules are we using in this game?" which in term led to a greater scrutiny of the rules and how the DM used them.
The multiplication of game systems didn't help in this regard either.
I'm sure there are a whole lot of other reasons as well. The White Wolf design philosophy didn't help either, I do agree, because it created the pendulum effect of reinforcing the role of the rules at the table in 3rd edition, no question about it. That's what players wanted at the time, after the reverse "RPG is Art" WW period.
It's been a problem since the 70's at least in my experience. I had to deal with players telling me monster X had too many hit points for years before 2e ever showed up.
IME it has much more to do with the players than anything else. I've seen guys go nuts over what they perceived to infractions since the earliest of early days. I've also run 4e, and had no one at the table question my judgment. We 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. We could take rule zero out of every game and the people who live by it (like me and most of the guys I've played with) would still keep on truckin.
In short I don't believe in the good old days- because I was there, and they were about the same as the present- except with mullets.
Quote from: BenoistI'm sure there are a whole lot of other reasons as well. The White Wolf design philosophy didn't help either, I do agree, because it created the pendulum effect of reinforcing the role of the rules at the table in 3rd edition, no question about it. That's what players wanted at the time, after the reverse "RPG is Art" WW period.
This is dumb. The reason game "evolved" that way has nothing to do with Forge or WW. It has nothing to do with "RPGs as art."
What it comes down to is this: there are more players than GMs. After RPGs weren't *new* anymore they became big business and included things like focus groups and registration surveys. Since the majority of responders would be players, what do you think most players would be clamoring for?
The answer is easy: more power. They want to have more power and part of maintaining that power is making sure there are no "cheater" GMs "making up shit" taking away their control of the game. So now GM's have a different set of rules to follow.
Here's an actual quote from one of my players:
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.
The reasons why I personally think the GM and the players should follow the same rules is so that players can actually expect to develop skill at playing. It promotes tactical mastery and system interest and having a more detailed game if the players know "If I use this move, I'll get this bonus..."
At that point they have the expectation if they use a rule it will be interpreted pretty much like the book says.
If the players are under the impression that all calls are just arbitrary and up to the GMs interpretation, they will either : invest less energy in actually learning the game system because it's ajust one big imaginational exercise, which needs no game system..
Or it leads to a humor the GM type of game where people use joke names and avoid getting involved in the essentially disposable nature of the game. Because what is the point?
Quote from: KrakaJak;291656This is dumb. The reason game "evolved" that way has nothing to do with Forge or WW. It has nothing to do with "RPGs as art."
This I agree with.
From there I propose that it has to do with people. People are conditioned from kindergarten to believe that rules are expected to be followed.
Initially there were not a lot of rules written down and the expectation was that a Game Ruler/Judge would determine the "Rule of Law" as needed.
As the games have been played longer, the expectation is that by now there should be rules, and as there are, they should be followed.
Those who play to get away from RULES, play different games than those who expect RULES. (and likely prefer different genre as well)
=
Quote from: Aos;291655In short I don't believe in the good old days- because I was there, and they were about the same as the present- except with mullets.
Which is similar to my point about the shift in focus being created by the folks who were around for the GM as God days...
Seanchai
Quote from: Aos;291655In short I don't believe in the good old days- because I was there, and they were about the same as the present- except with mullets.
Proof that gaming needs more mullets.
Players don't deserve "power". What they DO deserve is a benevolent dictator.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;291660The reasons why I personally think the GM and the players should follow the same rules is so that players can actually expect to develop skill at playing. It promotes tactical mastery and system interest and having a more detailed game if the players know "If I use this move, I'll get this bonus..."
I generally do not use rules systems that promote this type of "system mastery." A player doesn't need to even know the rules in any detail to play, they can simply tell me what their character does and I can map it to the rules system. The immersive style of play combined with less complex rules I tend to use makes this easy. Players can develop a lot of skill at playing in this type of game without having to buy any rulebooks -- let alone study them like they were books of chess openings. Different strokes for different folks.
I just found that following the rules (as GM) was easier than not following the rules*. Also, if I want to make shit up I'll just make shit up.
*Somewhere back in the 80s, when I had a reverse mullet for a while.
Quote from: droog;291680*Somewhere back in the 80s, when I had a reverse mullet for a while.
You deserve only death.
On topic, there's so many conditional, borderline, and tangential issues that I can't imagine ever not needing to house-rule or spot-call something, at least some of the time. An inflexible adherence to the rules would get in the way of that, even if there was an explicit 'without guidance, GM call' rule tucked in the back.
Quote from: Aos;291655In short I don't believe in the good old days- because I was there, and they were about the same as the present- except with mullets.
Bravo, Aos! Barvo!
-clash
Quote from: An actual Player"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."
Takes 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.
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.
But all that the character is or can be must be filtered through the GM in your model.
Quote from: LeSquide;291685You deserve only death.
21 in 1985, baby. Those were the days.
Quote from: droog;291718But all that the character is or can be must be filtered through the GM in your model.
In many ways, yes. I think that's actually the role of the GM: to ensure that the game unfolds in a way that entertaining for all the people participating in it. That includes filtering actions of the players on a case by case basis.
Now, I actually just posted elsewhere that I do not mean "rules are useless". That's just not true. Rules help create a basic sense of cooperation at the game table and give ways for players to look at the world and understand how it works. They are not some sort of arbiter between the GM and players, however, and certainly not a weapon players can wield against a GM.
The GM can modify, alter, change the rules whenever necessary, with the premise and understanding that this will affect the basic compact at the game table (and this can be very damaging to the game indeed). So the GM has to do so carefully, make the point that he is in control up front, and not work "against" the players but with them (meaning listening to feedback, be fair and mindful, et cetera). That's the point of RPGs, really.
Quote from: Benoist;291721In many ways, yes. I think that's actually the role of the GM: to ensure that the game unfolds in a way that entertaining for all the people participating in it. That includes filtering actions of the players on a case by case basis.
After a couple of decades, I just find that exhausting. Some of the other lazy bastards round the table can step up and take a hand.
But anyway, from the player's point of view, then, he has no control because you (the GM) have the ultimate say in how the chr's actions go down. So he clings to what he can, i.e. rules.
Quote from: droog;291722But anyway, from the player's point of view, then, he has no control because you (the GM) have the ultimate say in how the chr's actions go down. So he clings to what he can, i.e. rules.
Untrue. That would be like saying that you can't walk down the street and get drunk in a bar because that's against the law, or copy a movie on your hard drive, and so on, so forth. Or go from A to point B because a cop could potentially stop you and put you under arrest, etc.
It assumes that the GM always says "no" at every turn. The GM lets players have some measure of control on the game milieu, or there's actually no point in playing the game at all. The players, through the actions of their characters, their own wits, intelligence, character abilities, etc do have a measure of control over the game milieu. The GM, however, has the power to say "no" - doesn't mean he does so at every turn, like a moron with a bully pulpit, without any consideration of the effect it has on the players' enjoyment on the game - but he does have that right.
Quote from: Benoist;291723Untrue. That would be like saying that you can't walk down the street and get drunk in a bar because that's against the law, or copy a movie on your hard drive, and so on, so forth.
It assumes that the GM always says "no" at every turn.
No, I'm not assuming that. But picture this: the GM is a black box. You put data in, something mysterious happens, and data comes out. The process by which the output is derived is opaque. Thus, the only way to have any meaningful input is through rules OR by knowing the GM really well.
I'm trying to illustrate to you how it's a rational decision to prioritise rules, both from GM's and players' points-of-view.
I guess I don't see the rationality of your argument.
The 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. If I don't have that to begin with, there's no point for me to be at the table at all, as a player or GM, so your whole "opaque" thing just doesn't work out for me. If I trust the GM, I trust the GM. As a character in the game milieu, "I" am not supposed to understand everything about how the world works, what opponents I'm facing, etc... mystery is part of the deal, wouldn't you think?
PS: Interesting, by the way, to see the way you actually quoted my post and the part you left out.
Do you agree with the part you left out?
Quote from: Benoist;291725I guess I don't see the rationality of your argument.
The basic premise of participating in a role-playing 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 wrecking it. If I don't have that to begin with, there's no point for me to be at the table at all, as a player or GM, so your whole "opaque" thing just doesn't work out for me. If I trust the GM, I trust the GM. As a character in the game milieu, "I" am not supposed to understand everything about how the world works, what opponents I'm facing, etc... mystery is part of the deal, wouldn't you think?
No, I think you're begging the question and assuming that your preferences are the core of RPGs. I like RPGs but I find many of those assumptions wearisome. If you like them, that's cool, but I might not play in your game.
I'm saying that if a lot of people are preferring the rules to GM fiat, there's probably some good reasons for it (beyond 'players are sulky bastards').
Quote from: Benoist;291725PS: Interesting, by the way, to see the way you actually quoted my post and the part you left out.
Do you agree with the part you left out?
I answered that.
Okay. That's just not what I'm saying, but that's okay.
What are you saying then?
Quote from: droog;291724No, I'm not assuming that. But picture this: the GM is a black box. You put data in, something mysterious happens, and data comes out. The process by which the output is derived is opaque. Thus, the only way to have any meaningful input is through rules OR by knowing the GM really well.
Or 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.
Quote from: droog;291726I'm saying that if a lot of people are preferring the rules to GM fiat, there's probably some good reasons for it (beyond 'players are sulky bastards').
What reasons? Please enlighten me.
Quote from: droog;291729What are you saying then?
Already answered that. Now that's your turn to explain yourself. ;)
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.
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 (http://www.bitsuk.net/Archive/GameAids/files/BITStask.pdf) 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
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_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
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
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
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.
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) :D
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: KenHR;292029How the hell was that an attack?
The general MO for those defending the GM-as-God paradigm is to say it's all about whiny players and shitty GMs. OG is just doing the same again.
I heard stories of DMs like that... but never actually met any. I mean, after you TPK a few parties with your home-brew Tomb of Horrors, I'd guess you wouldn't get asked to sit in the DM chair all that often. It's not like it's THAT hard to DM. :)
Yeah, granted Stuart. I knew a few really bad DMs like this and heard more stories than seen them in action myself. But then, does it really matter if the stories really happened or not? Even as stories, they sort of conveyed a sense of "here's what a really manly DM is all about, peons!"
Quote from: droog;292055The general MO for those defending the GM-as-God paradigm is to say it's all about whiny players and shitty GMs. OG is just doing the same again.
Surely, you don't believe that when I'm saying the whole black box thing comes down to shitty players or DM, I'm actually talking about you, right? Because I'm absolutely not talking about you or anyone in this thread. Just making that clear.
Seriously, you got offended by this?
Quote from: Benoist;292060Surely, you don't believe that when I'm saying the whole black box thing comes down to shitty players or DM, I'm actually talking about you, right?
I
know you're not talking about me, buddy.
But you seem to be unwilling to engage with the fact that several people, from the GM's seat, have made rational choices.
I could simply waltz through this argument saying that the only reason people prefer the God paradigm is that they feel inadequate in their daily lives. Not that I'd be talking about anybody here, of course. But it's not a very cogent argument.
Quote from: droog;292064I could simply waltz through this argument saying that the only reason people prefer the God paradigm is that they they're inadequate in their daily lives. Not that I'd be talking about anybody here, of course. But it's not a very cogent argument.
Yet as a disruptive meme in this discussion, it would be great. Only from you, Droog. Only from you.
Quote from: droog;292064I could simply waltz through this argument saying that the only reason people prefer the God paradigm is that they feel inadequate in their daily lives. Not that I'd be talking about anybody here, of course. But it's not a very cogent argument.
Of course, you'd be wrong.
I'm unwilling to recognize that any argument in favor of "the rules before the DMs rulings"* has been logical or sound so far. It is true.
* NB: You are the guys who choose to call it "DM as God", which in itself IMO is a stretch at best, a negative, rhetorical characterization at worse.
Quote from: droog;291722After a couple of decades, I just find that exhausting. Some of the other lazy bastards round the table can step up and take a hand.
I agree. Moreover, how do you make someone have fun?
Seanchai
Quote from: Benoist;292070I'm however unwilling to recognize that any argument in favor of the rules before the DMs rulings has been logical or sound so far, yes.
Well, there you go. Heaven help a player in your game.
Quote from: droog;292072Well, there you go. Heaven help a player in your game.
Now
you are the one who's implying I suck as a DM. Nice, rational argument you got here, jackass.
Everything's fine with my DMing, by the way. Thanks for asking.
Quote from: RandallS;291826Of 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.
And the same is true when I'm behind the screen as well.
For me, the interaction between the people at the table is
never replaced by rolling dice. If you want to find something, tell me how you go about looking for it. If you want to convince someone of something, tell me how you make the argument.
However, if the system includes a search skill or a diplomacy skill, and everyone's agreed
we're going to play this game right here, then the dice are going to roll, and the character skills or attributes or whatever are going to play a (potentially decisive) role in the outcome.
This goes back to a point I brought up earlier: the choice of system is going to make a big difference in how much and how often the referee is going to make rulings in play. In 1e
AD&D, before
OA and the
Survival Guides introduced proficiencies, a character's "skills" may be (1) class abilities and (2) a roll on the Secondary Skill chart, with the latter yielding results like "animal husbandry" or "navigation" or "carpentry." (Some races have additional abilities as well.) The players and the referee are expected to fill in the gaps here much more often than in d20 games, with the latter's lengthy skill lists, skill points, attribute bonuses and feats.
For my part I prefer roleplaying game which offer a smaller number of broad-stroke skills as opposed to long lists of narrowly defined skills. That's more in my wheelhouse: enough for the players to optimize a bit without turning the game into a statistics seminar, with much left to the imagination of the players and the referee. Frex, d20 has Jump, Climb, and Tumble;
Flashing Blades has Acrobatics. Guess which one I like better?
Another reason I prefer fewer, more broadly defined skills is that it helps to avoid straightjacketing player choices. One of my problems with d20 is that feats may constrain player choices for their characters: frex,
Ultramodern Firearms make suppressing fire a feat, possibly discourgaging players from choosing to lay down covering fire since characters lacking the feat take a penalty on the roll. Defining skills and abilities too narrowly may crimp player creativity.
Quote from: Benoist;291872PS: Thanks to the Shaman for the explanation as well. This was enlightening.
Thanks for adding the post script,
Benoist. I didn't know if you'd seen my reply, or if it was helpful or not.
Quote from: Benoist;291872But 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.
With all due respect, I think the dilemma you're proposing is neither as clear cut nor as extreme as you make it out to be.
In my experience even the best referees are going to be inconsistent at times, and most players metagame to some degree: the former is unavoidable human nature, and the latter is an artifact of playing a game.
Quote from: Benoist;291872Whether 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).
I don't know if you mean for it to come across this way, but, "[T]his stands in the way of actual gaming," sounds a bit like both onetruewayism and badwrongfunning other gamers. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're referring to you personal preferences here.
With respect to the highlighted section, I think that's why having the referee-as-ultimate-arbiter is A Good Thing in roleplaying games. The role of the referee is to prevent differing interpretations and page-flipping from getting in the way of play. Here's the ruling; let's move on.
Quote from: BenoistI believe most GMs don't know or care to know how to run a game properly. THIS is the real problem.
Certainly all referees, game masters, or whatever are not created equal, but I've met very few who were indifferent to their role behind the screen.
Maybe that needs to be a different thread: how do we help game masters to be better "ultimate arbiters?"
Quote from: Benoist;292077Now you are the one who's implying I suck as a DM. Nice, rational argument you got here, jackass.
Everything's fine with my DMing, by the way. Thanks for asking.
You sure are sensitive.
Quote from: droog;292081You sure are sensitive.
You sure are a provocating prick.
PS: Seen the post of the Shaman but can't answer in detail yet.
I'll answer to it.
Quote from: Benoist;292084You sure are a provocating prick.
Man, you've spent half the thread making ad hominems (sorry, Stuart) on people who don't share your views, and then you get all pissy at one little suggestion.
Why don't you back up, admit some of us have a point, and go from there. Because really, I can feed people's medicine back to them all day, but it doesn't go anywhere.
Quote from: Seanchai;292071I agree. Moreover, how do you make someone have fun?
Apparently benevolent dictators have this rare skill.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David R;292090Apparently benevolent dictators have this rare skill.
Always remember that a few eggs must be broken in the making of cheese souffle.
Quote from: droog;292087Why don't you back up, admit some of us have a point, and go from there. Because really, I can feed people's medicine back to them all day, but it doesn't go anywhere.
Dude, when you've got people who make a point, then I make a counterpoint, and then they aren't able to precise their thoughts or counterpoint themselves without making various types of attacks, snide remarks, faux-humor or reformulation of arguments to suit their needs and such, these aren't arguments that hold any water.
Stop being a pussy, make
actual arguments, defend them without deforming my own, and THEN we can have a conversation. I'm sorry, but so far, no argument in favor of "rules over DM rulings" make any sense to me beyond the fact that a bunch of people assume the DM will suck or prove to be an ass and present the Rules as King to prevent such a thing to ever occur. And that, in itself, makes about as much sense as preemptive war and the use of torture to combat terrorists. This is not a rational argument.
Quote from: Spike;292047So: 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?
If you and the group have established a good procedure and follow it, you will find most hidden things, yes. Without a skill roll -- don't forget most of the games I run DON'T EVEN HAVE SKILLS to roll against. Of course, just because you find a bunch of hidden/not obvious stuff at the crime scene doesn't mean you will put the clues together and solve the case. That's for player skill again.
QuoteAgain, you are missing my point.
Perhaps so, but the style of place your posts make it sound like you want isn't the style of play I run. You'd be better off in another game. I'm not trying to belittle your concerns, I'm simply pointing out that they are a different style of play than what I run. They make as little sense in my style as my way of doing things would in your style.
QuoteIf 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.
Okay you can roll against your search skill (even if I have to make one up on the spot) if you play in my campaigns. It will not affect what you discover, but you can roll if it makes you feel better.
Yes. I'm being annoyingly sarcastic here. That's because I see my method as producing almost the same end results as your method. The difference seems to be that you want to roll the dice against a skill before you get the info and I'm willing to give you the info because you are looking for it.
QuoteI 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...QuoteWhy would I want to list all that stuff? If you walk in on something like that and ask what you see out of place, I'll tell you what is out of place drawing attention to the important stuff that you just said you were looking for. If you don't mention it, I will not point those items out to you. The only difference between your method and mine that I can see is the fact that you want both the statement and a die roll, where all I need is the statement.
QuoteExactly my point. So... why are you not using them then? I am at a loss here, as you are advocating NOT USING THEM!
Actually, most opf my games don't have skills. I was simply saying how I would use them if I added skills to the system for some reason.
QuoteForgive 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...).
It works for my campaigns and my groups -- and we consider it less of a pain than acting it out but more player skill needed than making a die roll to decide the outcome. It may or may work well for you or other groups. However as I'm not trying to design "the one true game system" I expect all others to use, it really do not think it matters if it works well for those not in my campaigns. :confused:
I'm getting kind of psyched for upcoming diesel submarine war between Australia and Canada.
Quote from: The Shaman;292079Thanks for adding the post script, Benoist. I didn't know if you'd seen my reply, or if it was helpful or not.
With all due respect, I think the dilemma you're proposing is neither as clear cut nor as extreme as you make it out to be.
In my experience even the best referees are going to be inconsistent at times, and most players metagame to some degree: the former is unavoidable human nature, and the latter is an artifact of playing a game.
I totally agree. Part of the trust I was earlier talking about between players and DMs has to do with the simple realization of that fact.
Now, the premise of the "black box" dilemma is that the guessing games are prevalent, overwhelming and disruptive to the game play. If they're not, why would they be avoided? It has to be annoying to some degree. This means either one of the elements I propose got out of hand.
Quote from: The Shaman;292079I don't know if you mean for it to come across this way, but, "[T]his stands in the way of actual gaming," sounds a bit like both onetruewayism and badwrongfunning other gamers. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're referring to you personal preferences here.
Not really, no. If the one of the elements I argue would be the source of the black box issue, and understanding that the black box would be an issue because one of these elements would get out of hand, then they would be in the way of actual gaming. If the "black box" effect doesn't get in the way of actual gaming, why adress it at all by empowering the RAW at the table?
Quote from: The Shaman;292079With respect to the highlighted section, I think that's why having the referee-as-ultimate-arbiter is A Good Thing in roleplaying games. The role of the referee is to prevent differing interpretations and page-flipping from getting in the way of play. Here's the ruling; let's move on.
Indeed.
Quote from: The Shaman;292079Certainly all referees, game masters, or whatever are not created equal, but I've met very few who were indifferent to their role behind the screen.
Maybe that needs to be a different thread: how do we help game masters to be better "ultimate arbiters?"
Very good proposition!
Quote from: Benoist;292099Now, the premise of the "black box" dilemma is that the guessing games are prevalent, overwhelming and disruptive to the game play. If they're not, why would they be avoided? It has to be annoying to some degree. This means either one of the elements I propose got out of hand.
While I personally haven't experienced this, it certainly seems to be a factor for some, perhaps many, players.
Quote from: BenoistIf the "black box" effect doesn't get in the way of actual gaming, why adress it at all by empowering the RAW at the table?
Some people like to work the numbers when they play roleplaying games.
I know I'm one of 'em. I like having the tools to develop a character who's mechanically proficient as well as (hopefully) interesting from a roleplaying standpoint.
It's "roleplaying"
and a "game" for me. These are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.
Quote from: Aos;292098I'm getting kind of psyched for upcoming diesel submarine war between Australia and Canada.
I'm rooting for the Canucks, but my money's on Oz.
Quote from: The Shaman;292108Some people like to work the numbers when they play roleplaying games.
I know I'm one of 'em. I like having the tools to develop a character who's mechanically proficient as well as (hopefully) interesting from a roleplaying standpoint.
It's "roleplaying" and a "game" for me. These are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.
I'm one of them too, for sure.
That doesn't preclude DM rulings, however.
Quote from: Benoist;292110I'm one of them too, for sure.
That doesn't preclude DM rulings, however.
Nope, not at all.
The discussion is more about why and how often.
Total agreement.
I am not advocating about DM rulings all the time.
I'm however for the basic principle that RM rulings override the rules, not the reverse.
Quote from: Benoist;292093Stop being a pussy, make actual arguments, defend them without deforming my own, and THEN we can have a conversation. I'm sorry, but so far, no argument in favor of "rules over DM rulings" make any sense to me beyond the fact that a bunch of people assume the DM will suck or prove to be an ass and present the Rules as King to prevent such a thing to ever occur. And that, in itself, makes about as much sense as preemptive war and the use of torture to combat terrorists. This is not a rational argument.
Okay, for the kids at home, this is the Players side:
1. The GM making all rulings removes a significant chunk of control from the players.
2. There are basically two ways to address this, as players; (a) learn to read the GM (b) fall back on rules.
3. This does not assume that the GM is an ass, or that the players do not trust him. It's simply a preference.
This is the GM's side:
1. Following rules is an objective procedure that can make life simpler.
2. It is difficult to remain objective, transparent, and consistent when continually overruling rules.
Now, as far as I can see, Benoist old man, your arguments boil down to:
1. It works for me.
2. It's real roleplaying.
3. People should trust the GM.
4. Everybody else must be lazy or stupid.
Quote from: droog;292123Okay, for the kids at home
1. How does that remove "power" from the players unless you have a confrontational "players vs. DM" outlook on this in the first place?
2. See black box argument we've had before.
3. If players trust the DM and the DM is both competent and not an ass, there is no black box effect destructive to game play, therefore no issue to begin with.
This is the GM's side:
1. I don't see how making a ruling on the spot is harder than refering to the rules all the time.
2. a/ I'm not advocating overruling rules all the time. I'm advocating the principle that DM rulings override rules when needed. BIG difference. b/ it is possible for a DM to be objective, transparent and consistent, and not that hard, really.
Quote from: droog;292123Now, as far as I can see, Benoist old man, your arguments boil down to:
1. It works for me.
2. It's real roleplaying.
3. People should trust the GM.
4. Everybody else must be lazy or stupid.
See? You just can't help yourself.
Quote from: David R;292090Apparently benevolent dictators have this rare skill.
Regards,
David R
Yes, we do.
The power that is manipulated by that skill resides in our Viking Hats. ;)
Quote from: Benoist;2921261. How does that remove "power" from the players?
2. See black box argument we've had before.
3. If players trust the DM and the DM is both competent and not an ass, there is no black box effect destructive to game play, therefore no issue to begin with.
You don't understand. There is no arguing preference. You're just repeating these assertions about the way you like to play. They are also rational, from your point of view. What you don't seem to get is that the opposing arguments are entirely rational as well.
QuoteThis is the GM's side:
1. I don't see how making a ruling on the spot is harder than refering to the rules all the time.
2. a/ I'm not advocating overruling rules all the time. I'm advocating the principle that DM rulings override rules when they come up. BIG difference. b/ it is possible for a DM to be objective, transparent and consistent, and not that hard, really.
As I said, I did for years and I found a way that works better for me. All you have to do is find a game which produces results you're happy with. Over the years I'e found various games that meet this criterion. Hence, no need to bend the rules.
QuoteSee? You just can't help yourself.
Like the taste?
And now you don't want to bring up further argumentation of your points because it is "a preference"? That's nuts. It's like saying whatever the fuck you want and then finish by saying "it's my opinion. You can't argue opinions."
Bullshit. Arguments are not rational by virtue of being "preferences". That in itself is a completely illogical allegation.
Neither is yours, then, my man.
[This is where the ad hominems come in.]
Quote from: jeff37923;292127Yes, we do.
The power that is manipulated by that skill resides in our Viking Hats. ;)
King Arnulf: [Hy-Brasil is sinking, everything is collapsing and exploding]
Everyone stay calm! This is not happening! Regards,
David R
Quote from: droog;292134Neither is yours, then, my man.
[This is where the ad hominems come in.]
The Defense rests, your Honor.
Quote from: Benoist;292141The Defense rests, your Honor.
Fine--I find in favour of droog.
What's the matter, you want a roll or something?
Quote from: David R;292138King Arnulf: [Hy-Brasil is sinking, everything is collapsing and exploding] Everyone stay calm! This is not happening!
Regards,
David R
(If one of the PCs had foolishly pulled the plug on Brasil)-
"It is happening! You are all fucked! Next time don't pull the drain plug on Brasil!"(If a player had just rolled a 1 on the d20)-
"It is happening! What can we do to save ourselves!"
Dumbass, roll your skill check for Brasilian Drain Plugs again, but add +10 to the DC because of the fumble!
Quote from: jeff37923;292144(If one of the PCs had foolishly pulled the plug on Brasil)-
"It is happening! You are all fucked! Next time don't pull the drain plug on Brasil!"
(If a player had just rolled a 1 on the d20)-
"It is happening! What can we do to save ourselves!"
Dumbass, roll your skill check for Brasilian Drain Plugs again, but add +10 to the DC because of the fumble!
Y'all agreed on this method before the game, right?
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Stuart;292056I heard stories of DMs like that... but never actually met any. I mean, after you TPK a few parties with your home-brew Tomb of Horrors, I'd guess you wouldn't get asked to sit in the DM chair all that often. It's not like it's THAT hard to DM. :)
I encountered that sort of crap at the wargames club back in the 80s - "haw haw I killed you all!" There was certainly a large group of guys who thought that was how it was done - fuck with players any way you can - and when they played they liked to play all PvP backstabbing "I'm the thief and I've stolen your +2 sword and sold it haw haw!" There were break out groups with more interesting ideas, but that was the default style of play.
I stopped going to that club after a while, although back in the days the sales tables were the only way to get the real gear. I bought my first copy of Classic Trav from the sales tables at that club - memories!
Ned
Quote from: jeff37923;292127Yes, we do.
The power that is manipulated by that skill resides in our Viking Hats. ;)
I like the cut of your Jenny, lad.
Quote from: droog;292026, and guys like you just keep going back to these sorts of attacks instead of dealing with the arguments.
Hello, mister overexaggerated sense of your own self importance.
You haven't said anything worth dealing with.
I think modules gave many GMs bad ideas. That is all.
Anything more is read in by you.
The timetable regulates movement of trains unless overridden.
A valid train order written by the Dispatcher overrides the timetable.
If the Dispatcher writes a shit order and causes an accident, the Dispatcher is out of a job.
If you (generic) don't like the way the DM runs the game, fire the son of a bitch.
As long as everybody at the table is having fun, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU PLAY.
There is no such thing as "Badwrongfun".
Quote from: Old Geezer;292193You haven't said anything worth dealing with.
I'm not summarising it again, if that's what you're fishing for.
Quote from: Old Geezer;292193I think modules gave many GMs bad ideas. That is all.
Anything more is read in by you.
"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."
As usual this thread is confounding two issues that don't have to be linked. Let's see if anybody gets it.
1. Rules over GM vs the GM can ignore the rules.
2. Rules over GM vs wide latitude for GM discretion built into the rules.
Ooh, ooh, is it 2, Bob?
C'mon Elliot that's not it at all.
This is about the Pundit's contention that players should fear the GM and not the GM should fear the players. It's dumb really and doesn't reflect reality but that's never stopped him before.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David R;292224This is about the Pundit's contention that players should fear the GM and not the GM should fear the players.
Which goes to an earlier point of, if you fear the people you are gaming with, then why bother playing?
Exactly jeff. The commonality IME between all "functional groups" is that everyone is there of their own free will playing the kind of games which are fun for them. How exactly they play varies from group to group and indeed may not seem very fun to outsiders.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: jeff37923;292232Which goes to an earlier point of, if you fear the people you are gaming with, then why bother playing?
I don't think my players fear me, nor do I fear them.
But that's Forge thinking for you: "We can't give the GM power because he'll hurt us! So we have to have power over him and hurt him first!!"
The only reason to want to take away power from the GM is because you fear him. So which of us is really afraid here, David?
RPGPundit
Tools know no fear.
The player empowerment movement has three sources:
* The casuals dropped out of RPGs and left only the hardcores. It used to be that hardcores were GMs, and the casuals were players. The GMs had gaming systems and setting material to make them happy, and the players showed up and rolled some dice. The GM was the keeper, judge, and interpreter of the rules. Once the casuals dropped out of D&D, the hobby became dominated by hardcore players, and publishers had to cater to the demand for complex, hard-coded, universal rules. GM discretion became a fly in the ointment.
* The need to keep publishing supplements meant more books aimed at players. Players didn't want to see the books they bought with hard-earned money overruled by GMs.
* The success of MtG revealed the enormous market for analytical min-maxing, an almost solitary hobby of cracking systems. D&D clearly went for this market - the guys who would spend lots of money to build the optimal character/deck - with 3E. This is also a tremendously popular style of boardgame - dubbed the 'multiplayer solitaire' game on Boardgamegeek. Simply put, there are millions of gaming geeks out there who like nothing better than to crack and optimize systems. The less interference from outside sources (luck, DMs, etc.), the better.
Quote from: RPGPundit;292269The only reason to want to take away power from the GM is because you fear him.
I disagree. The forgie games I have tried seem based on player envy of GM power, not fear of its misuse. They envy the narrative control of the GM and want that power over their characters.
I don't mind little narrative bumps like drama dice in 7th Sea, but more narrative control than that negates immersion for me and kills the air of mystery/fog of war that I enjoy as a player.
I think there has been an unfortuneate choice of words here.
I would speak of players respecting the referee's authority rather than fearing his power.
There's a slight difference.
Quote from: Haffrung;292285The player empowerment movement has three sources:
* The casuals dropped out of RPGs and left only the hardcores. It used to be that hardcores were GMs, and the casuals were players. The GMs had gaming systems and setting material to make them happy, and the players showed up and rolled some dice. The GM was the keeper, judge, and interpreter of the rules. Once the casuals dropped out of D&D, the hobby became dominated by hardcore players, and publishers had to cater to the demand for complex, hard-coded, universal rules. GM discretion became a fly in the ointment.
I'd quibble about this because I think a lot of the casuals got wrapped up in videogames as well. RPGs just became less cool socially than other forms of entertainment and never recovered their popularity from the 80's. I don't think that the hardcore players were being catered to by publishers that much, though.
Quote from: Haffrung;292285* The need to keep publishing supplements meant more books aimed at players. Players didn't want to see the books they bought with hard-earned money overruled by GMs.
* The success of MtG revealed the enormous market for analytical min-maxing, an almost solitary hobby of cracking systems. D&D clearly went for this market - the guys who would spend lots of money to build the optimal character/deck - with 3E. This is also a tremendously popular style of boardgame - dubbed the 'multiplayer solitaire' game on Boardgamegeek. Simply put, there are millions of gaming geeks out there who like nothing better than to crack and optimize systems. The less interference from outside sources (luck, DMs, etc.), the better.
I fully agree with both of these reasons.
Quote from: Spinachcat;292287I disagree. The forgie games I have tried seem based on player envy of GM power, not fear of its misuse. They envy the narrative control of the GM and want that power over their characters.
I've got a tough time buying that because the players have total control over their character's actions in a game unless the GM is being an asshole. Even then, if a player gets up and leaves the game, that player takes that power of the GM over their characters away with them.
Quote from: Spinachcat;292287I disagree. The forgie games I have tried seem based on player envy of GM power, not fear of its misuse. They envy the narrative control of the GM and want that power over their characters.
I don't mind little narrative bumps like drama dice in 7th Sea, but more narrative control than that negates immersion for me and kills the air of mystery/fog of war that I enjoy as a player.
Ok, you're right. Envy is as much a motive as fear.
RPGPundit
Quote from: jeff37923;292311I've got a tough time buying that because the players have total control over their character's actions in a game unless the GM is being an asshole. Even then, if a player gets up and leaves the game, that player takes that power of the GM over their characters away with them.
I assumed what he meant was that the players wanted narrative control over external events that happen to their players.
Its not enough for Forgie players to control their PC's actions, they also want to control what can happen as a RESULT of those actions, hence setting up bullshit like "stakes".
They also want control of events that happen to their characters interacting with their environment, hence bullshit like "say yes or roll the dice".
RPGPundit
Casual gamers, by definition, value convience highly. Videogames scratch the itch of most casual gamers far more conveniently than tabletop RPGs due, purely due to the hassle of getting together to play. Solo-friendly games, that you can start or stop on a whim, and aren't too demanding mentally--New Mom Friendly stuff--are the games that most casual gamers want.
Quote from: RPGPundit;292269The only reason to want to take away power from the GM is because you fear him. So which of us is really afraid here, David?
I'm not the one hung up on the players using the rules to question the GM. I'm not the one who thinks of the GM as a benign dictator. I'm not the one who thinks that players are envious of the GM's "narrative" control. I'm not the one whose terrified of losing his socalled authority as a GM.
I am the one however, who thinks that each group determines how they play their games, how much influence their GM has and the groups fidelity to the rules.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Haffrung;292285The player empowerment movement has three sources:
* The casuals dropped out of RPGs and left only the hardcores. It used to be that hardcores were GMs, and the casuals were players. The GMs had gaming systems and setting material to make them happy, and the players showed up and rolled some dice. The GM was the keeper, judge, and interpreter of the rules. Once the casuals dropped out of D&D, the hobby became dominated by hardcore players, and publishers had to cater to the demand for complex, hard-coded, universal rules. GM discretion became a fly in the ointment.
* The need to keep publishing supplements meant more books aimed at players. Players didn't want to see the books they bought with hard-earned money overruled by GMs.
* The success of MtG revealed the enormous market for analytical min-maxing, an almost solitary hobby of cracking systems. D&D clearly went for this market - the guys who would spend lots of money to build the optimal character/deck - with 3E. This is also a tremendously popular style of boardgame - dubbed the 'multiplayer solitaire' game on Boardgamegeek. Simply put, there are millions of gaming geeks out there who like nothing better than to crack and optimize systems. The less interference from outside sources (luck, DMs, etc.), the better.
This is a little contradictory. The enormous success of Magic: The Gathering showed that even ordinary gamers had an interest in crunchy rules sets. MtG players tended to be more casual in many senses than RPG players, though less so in others. Note that hardcore players and crunchy rules among RPGs long predate MtG -- with Champions (1983) being a leading example of complex, hard-coded universal RPG rules.
Also, when you speak about the "need" for supplements, it's a little deceptive. There were plenty of efforts at more casual games that didn't have chains of supplements, like the many variations of Basic D&D along with Toon, Ghostbusters, and others. However, they weren't big hits and the evolved wisdom was that you needed a chain of supplements to get a successful game.
Also, I'd distinguish between the "player empowerment" of having a dependable rules system like Champions or D&D3, which is by now quite mainstream, with the "player empowerment" of story games that is still a niche within a niche. There is some relation, but they are very distinct, I think.
First up, I don't know why this is two threads. It seems like needless duplication, or forum fluffing for the appearance of more content.
To the point: I think "rule over GM" comes - not that it's very strong, it's been way overstated by Pundit et al - from the same place that the multiple editions of games have come. It's the nature of all systems to make themselves larger and more complex.
The thing is that you begin with some rules, and find they don't cover everything, or contradict each-other or common sense, so the GM makes rulings. If the same ruling is made a few times, then it becomes a house rule. The idea bubbles around and appears in a supplement to the 1st edition of the game; the ruling has become a rule.
In addition, player imagination and munchkinism both mean that the GM needs to make rulings. It was common in AD&D, for example, for the GM to be pushed by their players to make up rules for firearms and explosives. Long before Unearted Arcana came out there were already PC barbarians and ninjas. So this player drive for more options and more power also drove the supplement and rules bloat.
Eventually all these supplements start to outweigh the original rules by a huge amount, and be full of contradictions of each-other. So then it's time for a 2nd edition which will condense and streamline all these things. Then the 2nd edition goes through the same cycle. This is why each edition has a bigger pagecount than the last.
The system becomes larger and more complex. It's expected to be relied on for more and more of the success of the game session. If the system has 48 pages then you expect a lot of rulings, and a lot of call on the GM to use their judgment. But if it's got 576 pages then you expect less rulings, and less need for GM judgment.
You start to dream of some sort of Platonic ideal of a game where the rules cover everything, and the GM doesn't have to decide anything at all. And it's not only players who dream of this, GMs dream of it, too. How nice not to have to figure anything out and deal with player arguments, how nice to just be able to look up the rule...
So the "rules over GM" thing doesn't need player distrust or anything like that. It can just come from the game system, like all systems, tending to make itself larger and more complicated over time.
Quote from: David R;292357I am the one however, who thinks that each group determines how they play their games, how much influence their GM has and the groups fidelity to the rules.
Regards,
David R
Bingo right there it is. If anybody says any different than they are wrong. I've had groups that I've had to rule with an iron fist and others that I let them do almost anything they want in. It's all about the individual group. No wanna be RPG messiah can say any different.
Quote from: jhkim;292368Also, I'd distinguish between the "player empowerment" of having a dependable rules system like Champions or D&D3, which is by now quite mainstream, with the "player empowerment" of story games that is still a niche within a niche. There is some relation, but they are very distinct, I think.
I agree, because this is very similar to what I raised up-thread, though stated differently.
BTW, not sure exactly what Pundit's on about, and don't particularly care. The responses he's gotten, though, blur the distinction between gaming in a way that requires the GM to play by the rules
when the rules apply, and gaming where rules
qua rules rather universally constrain what the GM can do.
Pundit is right, though, that the latter is where we get "stakes setting" and "say yes or roll the dice", at least in their more extreme forms. Of course the extreme forms are either qualified in discussion and/or practice (sometimes to the point that they just amount to good traditional GMing practices), or they turn into social coercion by another name...or just fall flat as no real consensus develops, only polite acceptance of each other's lame "stakes".
There are at least three camps in this overall discussion, maybe four. One, not represented very strongly at this site, is the GM-as-auteur storyteller who (usually secretly) alters the rules on the fly, or subverts them in the interest of a particular plotline. Another is, basically, what I think Kyle advocates, where the GM basically overrules the rules in response to the mood at the table. Still another--which is where I'm happiest--is where the GM has clear authority over the game world, but generally tries to make the rules relevant wherever they apply. Finally there's the "stakes" and "say yes" approach, which as I've said tends toward the idea that the GM's authority has to be bound by rules at every juncture.
You can see the difference between these last two approaches if you look at Burning Wheel. Yes, the game has some "stakes setting" and "say yes", but there's nothing that limits the GM's ability to introduce opposition. If the GM wants to, he can have a hundred veteran ruffians around the next corner, and no general-purpose storygame mechanic is there to guarantee that a player can roll against a random skill to get out of the pickle.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;292375First up, I don't know why this is two threads. It seems like needless duplication, or forum fluffing for the appearance of more content.
This thread was meant to be the "history" thread, to trace where the concept came from. The other was to debate the virtues or faults of the concept itself. Naturally, there's ended up being quite a bit of overlap on account of both threads getting tons of post... which I think kind of defeats the accusation of "fluffing".
QuoteIn addition, player imagination and munchkinism both mean that the GM needs to make rulings. It was common in AD&D, for example, for the GM to be pushed by their players to make up rules for firearms and explosives.
Its sort of beside the point, but there WERE rules in the AD&D 1e DMG for firearms.
RPGPundit
Wow, it's Nature vs. Nurture all over again.
I'll only add that as a player, I can only affect the game by either playing to the rules, or playing to the GM's expectations. And 90% of the time I've found I had better luck doing the latter, but I really don't care which takes precedence. It's just easier to figure out where I stand with a set of rules than with a person.
Quote from: RPGPundit;292406This thread was meant to be the "history" thread, to trace where the concept came from.
And what have we learned in regards to the nefarious source of this dastardly movement?
Perhaps there's little history in this thread because this movement doesn't actually exist in the form you think it does?
Quote from: RandallS;292097Why would I want to list all that stuff? If you walk in on something like that and ask what you see out of place, I'll tell you what is out of place drawing attention to the important stuff that you just said you were looking for. If you don't mention it, I will not point those items out to you. The only difference between your method and mine that I can see is the fact that you want both the statement and a die roll, where all I need is the statement.
Unlike the real world, the only source of information players have about the game world is through you, and if you don't give them enough information to form legitimate questions, then they aren't going to be able to ask them. It's very easy to limit and direct the kind of questions players will ask, even by accident, by the kind of details you choose to share in the initial description. I do this as a presenter, mentalist, and GM all the time.
Though there are certainly many others, this is THE main issue that drove the design of Project Acorn. Hell, (player) perception and (GM) presentation are MORE THAN HALF THE GAME! Yet they're typically addresses with a single skill and/or attribute.
This is a discussion for another time however.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;292219As usual this thread is confounding two issues that don't have to be linked. Let's see if anybody gets it.
1. Rules over GM vs the GM can ignore the rules.
2. Rules over GM vs wide latitude for GM discretion built into the rules.
3. Peanut butter and chocolate.
But they do taste great together.
On the other hand, this opens up all sorts of arguments over what the right way to eat a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup is.
Quote from: chaosvoyager;292618On the other hand, this opens up all sorts of arguments over what the right way to eat a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup is.
Everyone knows you start at the middle and work your way out. Duh.
Quote from: RPGPundit;292406Its sort of beside the point, but there WERE rules in the AD&D 1e DMG for firearms.
Best of all, there were rules for using
Gamma World firearms.
I got your "wand of fireballs" right here, beyotch.