Quote from: The Traveller;628873You're aware that you're talking about getting people to play in a game where learning the rules is discouraged, and where one member of the group is the law, in the Judge Dredd sense? That doesn't fly. We aren't talking about a disagreement on how one should GM, we're talking about a fundamental incomprehension of the role of the GM here.

Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years. It also fits the definition of GM put forth in most RPGs I own & play.

QuotePlayer agency, what players (not characters) do to affect the game. That's everything from making coffee to deciding to squeeze the trigger on the Dictator of Tau Zero.

It seems then that you're definition of "player agency" would fit what most people commonly called metagaming.

Quote from: The Traveller;628874This right here is bollocks. Not entirely, I support it as far as bringing the awesome goes, but it is factually incorrect and sets up a GM as an absolutely powerful figure, which is objectively wrong. Remember that word, wrong.
.

Since you are proposing that you're opinions are "objective facts" , then it should be very easy to provide definitive proof for your claims.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628880Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years. It also fits the definition of GM put forth in most RPGs I own & play.

It may be what you read into the games, but "players not learning the rules as a feature" is nonsensical in any gaming environment. It is amazing that I even need to say this, and even more amazing that you take it as a given.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628880It seems then that you're definition of "player agency" would fit what most people commonly called metagaming.

Again, astonishing that this needs to be asked, but why? All of these things affect the gaming environment, why would player agency upset you that much?

Quote from: TristramEvans;628882Since you are proposing that you're opinions are "objective facts" , then it should be very easy to provide definitive proof for your claims.

Already have, see the thread previous. For example, the GM can no more arbitrarily nuke the game world than someone in possession of a driving licence can arbitrarily choose to plough into the nearest crowded pavement with their vehicle. Yes technically it's an option but they stop being a driver and start being a mass murderer at that point. Similarly a GM stops being a GM and starts being a dick if assertions of "absolute power" are taken as fact. They aren't, and it would be foolish to think otherwise.

Quote from: The Traveller;628873You're aware that you're talking about getting people to play in a game where learning the rules is discouraged, and where one member of the group is the law, in the Judge Dredd sense? That doesn't fly.

I wouldn't say you should play like that to the exclusion of other styles, but it (GM handles most all the rules, player has very limited awareness of them) is definitely worth trying sometime for a hard-immersion-type experience, if you've never done it. It's pretty different.

Quote from: Imp;628887I wouldn't say you should play like that to the exclusion of other styles, but it (GM handles most all the rules, player has very limited awareness of them) is definitely worth trying sometime for a hard-immersion-type experience, if you've never done it. It's pretty different.

Are you saying that awareness of the rules adversely affects immersion? I can't say I agree with that.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628880Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years. It also fits the definition of GM put forth in most RPGs I own & play.

It's worked for mine since 1975. I will not be a GM who acts like The Traveller describes and as a player would not enjoy gaming with such a GM. That said, The Traveller's version of what a good GM is does seem to be exactly what one subset of the tabletop RPG hobby wants. I'm just not part of that subset.

Quote from: RandallS;628889It's worked for mine since 1975. I will not be a GM who acts like The Traveller describes and as a player would not enjoy gaming with such a GM. That said, The Traveller's version of what a good GM is does seem to be exactly what one subset of the tabletop RPG hobby wants. I'm just not part of that subset.

Feel free to argue with the specific points raised rather than putting forth your opinion as fact.

Quote from: The Traveller;628886It may be what you read into the games, but "players not learning the rules as a feature" is nonsensical in any gaming environment. It is amazing that I even need to say this, and even more amazing that you take it as a given.

Well, look at why rules exist in most games: to define the "win condition". RPGs are unique in that  there is no "win condition" (unless its forced onto the game, in which case its limiting player freedom of choice). Instead rules in RPG exist simply to avoid "Reality Clash", and even this isn't entirely necessary all the time. Its very possible to play RPGs using no rules whatsoever.

QuoteAgain, astonishing that this needs to be asked, but why? All of these things affect the gaming environment, why would player agency upset you that much?

It doesn't upset me at all. What are you talking about?

QuoteAlready have, see the thread previous. For example, the GM can no more arbitrarily nuke the game world than someone in possession of a driving licence can arbitrarily choose to plough into the nearest crowded pavement with their vehicle. Yes technically it's an option but they stop being a driver and start being a mass murderer at that point. Similarly a GM stops being a GM and starts being a dick if assertions of "absolute power" are taken as fact. They aren't, and it would be foolish to think otherwise.

Okay, so its not factual or objective, the word you're looking for is "subjective".

Quote from: The Traveller;628888Are you saying that awareness of the rules adversely affects immersion? I can't say I agree with that.

I suspect you are also operating under a different definition of Immersion than the way you're going to find it most often discussed by people who play in that style.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628892Its very possible to play RPGs using no rules whatsoever.

Congratulations, you're a storygamer. Why not sit around having a conversation instead? Here, throw a dice and we can all have a referendum on what that means.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628892Okay, so its not factual or objective, the word you're looking for is "subjective".

Yeah but you must agree that what works for you might not work for most people, especially those with no history or understanding of what a GM is or does. What we're trying to do here is make the role understandable to those who just want to pick it up and play.

Any way you slice it, players not knowing the rules is pretty off the rails.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628894I suspect you are also operating under a different definition of Immersion than the way you're going to find it most often discussed by people who play in that style.

Again, you've appointed yourself president of roleplaying. How come I wasn't made aware of the election?

Quote from: The Traveller;628896Again, you've appointed yourself president of roleplaying. How come I wasn't made aware of the election?

Funny, as you're the one claiming your opinion on how games should be played is objective and factual.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628897Funny, as you're the one claiming your opinion on how games should be played is objective and factual.

I'm backing my observations up with as much evidence as can be accumulated. You on the other hand are saying that players shouldn't know the rules of the game. Seriously take a step back and look at that. It may work for you but that doesn't mean it will work in the vast majority of cases, or that it's not wide open to abuse. It is in short terrible advice for a budding GM.

The founding fathers of the USA had some ideas that still hold true today, and were pretty good.

The founding fathers of software development had some half-decent ideas that may or may not hold true today depending on the case.

The founding fathers of architecture had some seriously shit ideas that would be laughed out of the room today.

Things change, understanding grows.

Quote from: The Traveller;628895Congratulations, you're a storygamer. Why not sit around having a conversation instead? Here, throw a dice and we can all have a referendum on what that means.

so, you don't know what a storygame is and how it differs from an RPG, and instead you think "roleplaying" itself is a bad thing and that people should only be focused on rules systems with "roleplaying" extant. Gotcha.

QuoteYeah but you must agree that what works for you might not work for most people, especially those with no history or understanding of what a GM is or does.

I see no reason to agree with that, as it flies in the face of reality, specifically ALL roleplaying in the 70s.

QuoteWhat we're trying to do here is make the role understandable to those who just want to pick it up and play.

And instead you've adopted the tactic of enforcing you're own particular gamist playstyle on people as if its the "correct and only" way to play.

QuoteAny way you slice it, players not knowing the rules is pretty off the rails.

Only as "The Rails" are in this case a dictatorial rules-overt style of play thats contrary to the players immersing in a role, making choices as the character interacting with a "real" world.

Quote from: The Traveller;628899I'm backing my observations up with as much evidence as can be accumulated.

you haven't provided ANY evidence yet, simply made assertions.

QuoteThe founding fathers of the USA had some ideas that still hold true today, and were pretty good.

The founding fathers of software development had some half-decent ideas that may or may not hold true today depending on the case.

The founding fathers of architecture had some seriously shit ideas that would be laughed out of the room today.

Things change, understanding grows.

Thats kind of a meaningless statement.