"Bring the awesome"?
"Shared imaginary space"?
"It depends on the game"?

What is this commie nonsense?

The players decide whether to take the adventure hook, the GM offers the adventure hook. The players decide what their characters do. The GM decides if it succeeds or fails, and what the rest of the world does.

That's it, boys and girls, it really is not more complicated than that.

Quote from: The Traveller;628851The entire hobby in objective terms can be seperated into six elements.

• The GM
• The Characters
• The Players
• The Rules
• The Setting
• The Dice

The GM, the rules and the dice may be subsumed into one, the GM, since the GM has the power to overrule any dice roll or rule at any time for any reason they see fit.

You omitted snacks. Roleplaying games are a social hobby, and food brings people together.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628978The GM, the rules and the dice may be subsumed into one, the GM, since the GM has the power to overrule any dice roll or rule at any time for any reason they see fit.

You omitted snacks. Roleplaying games are a social hobby, and food brings people together.

Good to have you back mate

Quote from: RandallS;628942The GM, not the rules (or the game designer or the publishing company), is the final authority.

So, the PC has 130 hp, and leaps off a kilometer high cliff knowing that the maximum falling damage is 20d6. Oho says the GM, not in my game, makes it 30d6 on the spot, and the PC goes splat.

Who was in the right here?

The player wouldn't have made the decision for their character to jump off the cliff without also being aware of the rules. If the GM had decided to fix that loophole prior to the game starting and informed the group, all would have been well. Maybe the player was taking the piss a bit but this does illustrate the limitations of a GM's power when it runs into the Players, note not their characters.

Whether or not you like it the GM doesn't in reality have final authority over anything except the GM and sort of the setting. Everything else is shared power to one degree or another.

Quote from: Nexus;628943But 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.

Nobody is actually saying that though. That's why I placed repeated emphasis on the role of the GM in causing the group to suffer and die.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628978The GM, the rules and the dice may be subsumed into one, the GM, since the GM has the power to overrule any dice roll or rule at any time for any reason they see fit.

Again, power you can't use isn't power at all. The GM can arbitrarily change rules, overrule dice, and make the characters spin on their heads. But the GM that does this won't have a group of players for long. So there are real restrictions to that power. Absolute power is a misconception here.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628978You omitted snacks. Roleplaying games are a social hobby, and food brings people together.

That falls under the heading of Awesome.

Just because the power isn't absolute doesn't mean it's not power. The British PM cannot simply decide one day that all the citizens of the UK will all convert to Shi'ite Islam. Does that mean the British PM has no power?

The GM's power overrules all dice rolls and rules. Like the PM, the GM acts more-or-less with the consent of the governed, even if the consent is nothing more than "well, nobody else can be bothered doing the job."

Teh 4wes0m3 is too nebulous and undefined. It's simply saying, "um, I guess we should try to have fun." Which is like the stupid arseholes who go to a restaurant and ask, "What's good?"
"Well most of it tastes awful, that's why we spend thousands of dollars buying the ingredients and hours chopping it up and preparing it for you to eat. We do however have a secret menu of Stuff That Tastes Good, slip me a twenty and you can have a look."

The point of going to a restaurant is to eat food that tastes good, the point of gaming is to have fun. This can be assumed. If nothing tastes good or is fun, why the fuck are you there? It's tautological.

The players play their characters, the GM plays everyone and everything else. The GM offers plot hooks, the players take some.

You're trying to make simple stuff complex. Ron Edwards tried that about ten years back, we still make fun of him for it.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628997Just because the power isn't absolute doesn't mean it's not power.

Never said otherwise.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628997Like the PM, the GM acts more-or-less with the consent of the governed

So not absolute final say power then.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628997Teh 4wes0m3 is too nebulous and undefined. It's simply saying, "um, I guess we should try to have fun." Which is like the stupid arseholes who go to a restaurant and ask, "What's good?"

It was defined a lot more earlier in the thread but I cut a lot of that out for the sake of getting the point across quickly.

"Awesome in this situation is just a subtext for the Platonic ideal of what makes a game fun, which itself varies depending on genre, setting, and the particulars of the group. Those moments when it all seems to work and comes together perfectly. Working towards this ideal can be quite a difficult and subtle task in its own right, and probably shouldn't imply all awesome all the time. For example, part of bringing the awesome might be the difficulty of striving towards a goal and overcoming all the odds, a culmination of lesser awesome to produce extra awesome."
"I don't think The Awesome needs to be some awe inspiring session that everyone talks about for eternity. For casual players, The Awesome might be the ROI of time invested to fun enjoyed being so great that its worth attending every week.

Every group is going to define The Awesome differently.

I play a lot of convention one shots. Most con gamers define The Awesome as having fun in a 4-6 hour slot where they get a beginning, middle and end of an adventure where their choices are meaningful. They may win, lose or die, but what matters is if they walk away feeling the time slot was well spent. And the more memorable, the better."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628997The players play their characters, the GM plays everyone and everything else. The GM offers plot hooks, the players take some.

There's a whole lot that can go wrong though. I mean look how many experienced GMs in this thread are having to backtrack on the idea of complete power. It hasn't really been thought about and this has led to all sorts of problems with otherwise well meaning GMs trying to act like a referee or godling in the mistaken belief that this was how it was done.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628997You're trying to make simple stuff complex. Ron Edwards tried that about ten years back, we still make fun of him for it.

Look calling me a totalitarian fascist is one thing but that's just going too far!

Quote from: Catelf;628974Traveller, 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?

This exchange says otherwise:
"You'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."

"Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years."

My position on it is again
The GM and players have a shared responsibility to make sure that the rules are followed. It is shared because rules shouldn't be adjusted without the knowledge and agreement of the players, and this should preferably occur before the game begins. The rules form a common understanding of how the characters and players interact with the setting, and as such should be unambiguously followed. The only exception to this guideline should be towards the end of bringing The Awesome, and even then used sparingly if at all.

Note this does make it clear that rules can be adjusted either before or in play, albeit with player cooperation.

Now with all that said I do get what TristramEvans is trying to get across, and RandallS as well. The main difference as far as I can see between what they're saying and what I'm saying is in the amount of responsibility the players should have for keeping to the rules, as well as possibly the degree to which rules should be followed, that wasn't made clear.

Obviously if the players aren't aware of the rules it doesn't matter if the rules are followed or not except in the most academic sense. In this situation the GM acts as a rule interpreter as well as every other role.

If you have players happy to play without knowledge of the rules, then that's a legitimate form of roleplaying. It doesn't describe any group I've ever come across, at least a minimal amount of understanding is needed in order to grasp what's on their character sheets, and after that they want to know more.

I guess the difference in opinions can really be boiled down to encouraging player understanding of the rules versus not viewing it as important.

I would also dispute that there's a linear scale with player knowledge and operation of the rules on one hand and character immersion on the other. There is a scale of sorts but it isn't linear. To expand on this a bit, once players are familiar with the rules, using them becomes almost instinctive. The GM as rules interpreter might be beneficial when introducing new games to people, but as time goes on I'd expect players to show a natural interest in the rules of the game. Being familiar with rules should make using them as much of an immersion breaker as rolling the dice - which is to say very little or not at all. That depends on whether or not the players do have an interest of course, some players just don't want to know. I wouldn't discourage those that do want to know however.

Quote from: The Traveller;629020This exchange says otherwise:
"You'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."

"Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years."

I have come across this kind of misunderstanding before:
Tristram may have said that sarcastically, or far more probable, Tristram probably referred to what he meant, rather than your misunderstanding of it, not understanding that what he wrote there only would confirm your impression ... which, as said, built on misunderstanding.
I may have personally made the same mistake as Tristram a few years back.
So, you both made mistakes:
You misunderstood him, and he confirmed that misunderstanding without understanding that he did.

Quote from: The Traveller;629020If you have players happy to play without knowledge of the rules, then that's a legitimate form of roleplaying. It doesn't describe any group I've ever come across, at least a minimal amount of understanding is needed in order to grasp what's on their character sheets, and after that they want to know more.

I guess the difference in opinions can really be boiled down to encouraging player understanding of the rules versus not viewing it as important.

This rather give me the impression that you and Tristram really doesn't disagree, although it is obvious you do vary in how you approach it, possibly leading to a difference in nuance.

Quote from: The Traveller;629020I would also dispute that there's a linear scale with player knowledge and operation of the rules on one hand and character immersion on the other. There is a scale of sorts but it isn't linear. To expand on this a bit, once players are familiar with the rules, using them becomes almost instinctive. The GM as rules interpreter might be beneficial when introducing new games to people, but as time goes on I'd expect players to show a natural interest in the rules of the game. Being familiar with rules should make using them as much of an immersion breaker as rolling the dice - which is to say very little or not at all. That depends on whether or not the players do have an interest of course, some players just don't want to know. I wouldn't discourage those that do want to know however.

Here, i fully, or mainly, agree with you:
I'm very knowledgable with the storytelling system, and with my approach to it, as well as with my own rules, which builds on them ... and i have no problem with immersion even when being a player in games using them.

To me, the real immersion breakers are rules discussions, having to wait too long for ones turn, and the GM deciding things that neither seems appropriate, logical, nor according to known rules ... or the world and/or setting.

Quote from: The Traveller;628992So, the PC has 130 hp, and leaps off a kilometer high cliff knowing that the maximum falling damage is 20d6. Oho says the GM, not in my game, makes it 30d6 on the spot, and the PC goes splat.

Who was in the right here?

Setting reality/verisimilitude trumps rules every time in games I run. Players are informed of both this fact and the fact that the rules are just guidelines for the GM that he can and will ignore or change as needed. Players are told to use common sense about the rules because where where common sense says one thing (like jumping off a one kilometer high cliff and surviving with only 20 dice damage) and setting reality/verisimilitude says another (barring a miracle even Conan would die trying that), common sense will likely prevail over the rules. Players who want rules over common sense (as interpreted by the GM) are free to find another campaign with another GM as I will not run my campaigns the why they want.

In this situation, I would probably have asked the player to roll 1d1000. If he rolled the character's Level + Con modifier or less, the character survived the fall due to a miracle, (but took the number rolled on that D1000 in dice of critical hit style damage). Otherwise, splat and dead.

QuoteThe player wouldn't have made the decision for their character to jump off the cliff without also being aware of the rules. If the GM had decided to fix that loophole prior to the game starting and informed the group, all would have been well.

I fix all such loopholes in the rules by informing players that reality trumps the rules and that the rules are just guidelines for the GM as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

QuoteAgain, power you can't use isn't power at all. The GM can arbitrarily change rules, overrule dice, and make the characters spin on their heads.

I do the first often, the second occasionally, and there is a spell in one of my settings that could be used to spin characters on their heads (although it normally just levitates the target and spins him around very fast in the air) -- yet I have no trouble finding or keeping players.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;628977The players decide whether to take the adventure hook, the GM offers the adventure hook. The players decide what their characters do. The GM decides if it succeeds or fails, and what the rest of the world does.

That's it, boys and girls, it really is not more complicated than that.

Kyle Aaron speaks for me.

Quote from: The Traveller;629020"Doesn't fly for who? Its worked fine for my gaming groups for the last 30 years."

This is such a silly comment. And so typical of therpgsite.

The stick plows worked for a lot longer than 30 years before a better version was invented in what... 1797 according to a quick google.

People got along without flying until 1903 and many thought that idea insane.

If you're going to say you don't want to do something, debate it on the merits. Not if it has or hasn't been done, nor how successfuly you've been in the past with other methods.

Quote from: RandallS;629046Setting reality/verisimilitude trumps rules every time in games I run. Players are informed of both this fact and the fact that the rules are just guidelines for the GM that he can and will ignore or change as needed. Players are told to use common sense about the rules because where where common sense says one thing (like jumping off a one kilometer high cliff and surviving with only 20 dice damage) and setting reality/verisimilitude says another (barring a miracle even Conan would die trying that), common sense will likely prevail over the rules. Players who want rules over common sense (as interpreted by the GM) are free to find another campaign with another GM as I will not run my campaigns the why they want.

In this situation, I would probably have asked the player to roll 1d1000. If he rolled the character's Level + Con modifier or less, the character survived the fall due to a miracle, (but took the number rolled on that D1000 in dice of critical hit style damage). Otherwise, splat and dead.



I fix all such loopholes in the rules by informing players that reality trumps the rules and that the rules are just guidelines for the GM as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Agreed. If someone simple jumeped off a 1Km high building they are dead in my game no roll, well they might ask for divine intervention on the way down I guess.

Expecting to survive a fall that high because the rule books says 20d6 is terminal velocity is a bit like asking how much damage you take from the guillotine that just chopped into your neck and then arguing that a guillotine should do a d10 like a halberd.....

Quote from: gleichman;629075The stick plows worked for a lot longer than 30 years before a better version was invented in what... 1797 according to a quick google.

However, "better way to GM" is subjective and it also varies by play style and group taste. The best way to GM for your group would be on of the worst ways to GM for my group (as it from your descriptions of how you run your games, all my players would walk) and probably vice-versa (your players would likely walk from my games). This is no one objective best way to GM that is best for all tables. Trying to claim there is one best way top GM that is best for all styles of play and for all groups of players is basically claiming that there is only "one true way to play and that's my way."

Quote from: RandallS;629103However, "better way to GM" is subjective

It is, for one thing, plus you responded to a particular argument, which was that the traditional way to GM just "didn't fly" (the part of the post Brian Gleichman did not bold for some reason, which is the ACTUAL argument being made prior to your response), does not work, and since a lot of people, as you pointed out for yourself, have been doing it for decades without major issues, it is a statement that is flat out, factually, wrong, on its face.

Quote from: RandallS;629103However, "better way to GM" is subjective and it also varies by play style and group taste.

Than if that's the best reply you can manage- argue that, not that "I've done this for 30 years...".

I didn't say that there was a 'better way to GM', I just called that type reply to it lazy and unthinking.

I should note however that while I agree the proposed change in GM would be a negative, I think even your "it's subjective" answer rather sucks too. It's unserious, self-serving and in the end says nothing other than you're stuck in one style and refuse to change.