Quote from: TristramEvans;628900Only 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.

Great, please tell me of any other game anywhere where the players would be well advised not to learn the rules for fear of being called facists by Supreme Justice Evans?

This is wild, it really is.

:popcorn:

Quote from: The Traveller;628891Feel free to argue with the specific points raised rather than putting forth your opinion as fact.

It's fact as to what I enjoy running and playing, not opinion. I have no need to argue with you points as I am not trying to claim that all players/GMs should want what I want. I don't give a damn (even) if every tabletop RPG player outside my group agreed with you as those people aren't in my campaigns and therefore what they like/want has little to no effect on me.

Quote from: RandallS;628904It's fact as to what I enjoy running and playing, not opinion. I have no need to argue with you points as I am not trying to claim that all players/GMs should want what I want. I don't give a damn (even) if every tabletop RPG player outside my group agreed with you as those people aren't in my campaigns and therefore what they like/want has little to no effect on me.

This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

So you are also firm in your belief that the players in a game shouldn't know the rules?

I'm not saying my theorem above is the One True Way or anything, it's being put out for discussion for a reason, but this little segue is fairly impressively fucked up.

Quote from: The Traveller;628903Great, please tell me of any other game anywhere where the players would be well advised not to learn the rules for fear of being called facists by Supreme Justice Evans?

I see, we've reached the point in the conversation where, lacking any argument for what I've said, and incapable of providing any of the "evidence" you claim led to your opinions being objective facts, you've instead decided to resort to hyperbolic ad hominem. LOL, funny how easy it is to tell if a poster knows what they're talking about by observing how quickly they resort to that.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628912I see, we've reached the point in the conversation where, lacking any argument for what I've said, and incapable of providing any of the "evidence" you claim led to your opinions being objective facts, you've instead decided to resort to hyperbolic ad hominem. LOL, funny how easy it is to tell if a poster knows what they're talking about by observing how quickly they resort to that.

Lacking any argument against the players not knowing the rules of the game they are playing in. Great. One would have thought that such an objection wouldn't need a counter argument, especially in a thread about good GMing.

Keep wheeling out those accusations of totalitarianism though, they always win arguments.

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

Taken to the extreme I'm describing, yes absolutely, though you lose the game part more than I generally enjoy as a standard mode of play. Immersion is nice but it's not always everything.

Quote from: Imp;628914Taken to the extreme I'm describing, yes absolutely, though you lose the game part more than I generally enjoy as a standard mode of play. Immersion is nice but it's not always everything.

Should something like that be part of the standard description of the role of a GM though? I don't think it's an accurate way to explain what a GM does. It wouldn't be hard to fit it into a general overview mind you, but it's falling into the same trap as "referee", a very one sided picture. Basically you're talking about the GM doing everything short of actually rolling for the players, although from the sounds of it that doesn't seem to be too far off. It is a distant outlier at best.

Quote from: The Traveller;628918Should something like that be part of the standard description of the role of a GM though? I don't think it's an accurate way to explain what a GM does. It wouldn't be hard to fit it into a general overview mind you, but it's falling into the same trap as "referee", a very one sided picture. Basically you're talking about the GM doing everything short of actually rolling for the players, although from the sounds of it that doesn't seem to be too far off. It is a distant outlier at best.

you are presnting an extremely one-sided picture of GMing, and everyone who brings up to you that there are alternate methods of GMing you're accusing of proposing a one-sided view. Hypocrisy much?

Quote from: TristramEvans;628922you are presnting an extremely one-sided picture of GMing, and everyone who brings up to you that there are alternate methods of GMing you're accusing of proposing a one-sided view. Hypocrisy much?

You haven't bothered to put in the basic effort of reading and trying to understand the post made, preferring instead to leap to accusations of fascism for who knows what reason, telling us that the

players

shouldn't know

the rules.

Not sure how much clearer that can be made. I actually understand the point you're lashing with your handbag there, I'm just not sure it should be included as being part of the role of a GM on account of it being bizarre.

Quote from: The Traveller;628923You haven't bothered to put in the basic effort of reading and trying to understand the post made, preferring instead to leap to accusations of fascism for who knows what reason players shouldn't know the rules.

Hm, that sentence needs a little work to be translated into English. But apparently you equate old school style play with fascism, which is rather silly.

"Players don't need to know the rules" isn't the same as "player's shouldn't", but I expect such nuances are lost on you.

QuoteI'm just not sure it should be included as being part of the role of a GM on account of it being bizarre.

 If you think that one of the common methods of play since the origin of the hobby is bizarre, then I'm going to suggest you don't really have enough experience with RPGs to be offering a comprehensive definition of Gamemastering.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628930Hm, that sentence needs a little work to be translated into English. But apparently you equate old school style play with fascism, which is rather silly.

"Players don't need to know the rules" isn't the same as "player's shouldn't", but I expect such nuances are lost on you.



 If you think that one of the common methods of play since the origin of the hobby is bizarre, then I'm going to suggest you don't really have enough experience with RPGs to be offering a comprehensive definition of Gamemastering.

Keep paddling that keyboard susan. Meanwhile if any of the adults would like to weigh in, I'd welcome some reasoned discussion, gleichman failed to derail the thread, tristram sure as hell isn't going to manage it.

Quote from: The Traveller;628931Keep paddling that keyboard susan. Meanwhile if any of the adults would like to weigh in, I'd welcome some reasoned discussion, gleichman failed to derail the thread, tristram sure as hell isn't going to manage it.

again, no actual argument so a fall back to ad hominem. You and gleichman sound pretty much the same to me.

Quote from: The Traveller;628905So you are also firm in your belief that the players in a game shouldn't know the rules?

Players should not need to know or even own the rules to be able to play (and play well). The only person who should need to know many rules is the GM. Players should be able to just say what their character is trying to do in "real world" terms and the GM should translate what they are trying to do into either a decision on whether or not it works (and how well) or dice rolls to decide the same.

If players want to learn more rules, they certainly are welcome to do so, however, you probably need to remember that to me, tabletop RPGs do not really have rules -- they only have guidelines for the GM. The GM, not the rules (or the game designer or the publishing company), is the final authority.

Quote from: TristramEvans;628858"the Game Master isnt the Game Master" is a pretty good summation of everything I dislike about modern gaming.

I don't mind not being the Game MASTER in the sense of having the only contributing voice or absolute authority to do whatever I want (which you don't really have anyway. The players can always leave and if they do you're not gming, you're maybe writing fiction). But I do dislike the line of thought that GM is essentially the players' trained monkey there to do what they want, carry out their wishes and generally facilitate glorified fanfic in the guise of a rpg.

I have to go back a few pages to find the origin of this debacle between Tristram & the Traveller.
I found this:

Quote from: TristramEvans;628870Not at all. I advocate the exact opposite style of gaming. Players should only have to be aware of the rules as little as possible and only as those rules map to specific decisions they are making as a character. The GM handles everything else.

And this, Traveller interpreted as this:

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?

Traveller, Tristram may have expressed it clumsily what he meant at that time, but has after that clearified at least 2 times what he meant:
"Players don't need to know the rules" isn't the same as "player's shouldn't".
Essentially, Tristram meant it like this:
A player should only have to learn the bare neccessities of the rules, they may of course learn more if they like, but they should not have to.
But you, Traveller, got the impression he meant:
"The players should not know the rules, so the GM may have free reign."
Do you see the difference?

Oh, and just ditch any arguments about who insulted who, both of you, because the first insult, Traveller referring to Tristrams kind of gameplay as faschistoid was clearly due to him misunderstanding what Tristram wrote, and it rolled on from there.
Arguing further on insults won't progress the real point of, and reason for this thread.