Quote from: RandallS;629046Setting reality/verisimilitude trumps rules every time in games I run.

When I'm playing, there are two things that annoy the hell out of me*:

1. GM fudges rolls to help our party win when the dice really say that we didn't. That takes away the enjoyment I get from my character and his or her actions being at risk.

2. GM fails to modify/discard rules when they conflict with common sense/verisimilitude/in-setting physics. That takes away the enjoyment I get from being able to make logical, setting-coherent decisions about which risks my character is going to take.

Above all else (except maybe being good at playing NPC motivations), I want a GM who is an objective-as-possible arbitrator who is possessed of enough judgement to make good calls on when a roll should be based on the rules and when it should be based on a modified version of the rules or even on entirely different rules.

*Actually, more than two. But let's call it two for rhetorical purposes.

Quote from: The Traveller;628992The 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.

Both "prior to the game starting" and in the course of play, we communicate with one another about the rules of the world perceptible to characters -- not necessarily always about the game abstractions of which they have no knowledge.

This is a matter of common sense, maturity and good will! People too maladjusted to work appropriately within the social contract create problems, not the contract itself.

QuoteThe 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.

Exactly!

My friends and I generally regard the GM's main role as relieving us of concerns that would detract from our enjoyment if we had to pay attention to them ourselves.

When acting as GM, my primary goal is to maximize the pleasure my friends take in our spending an evening together.

Quote from: gleichman;629075This 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.

So build a better mousetrap.

None of your examples have any relevance to RPgs, because there's no such thing as an objective measurement of fun. If someone has more fun with a game published in 78 than they do with one published in 2010, then the older game is objectivelly better for their group. But you're whole "everyone needs to have fun my way which is clearly superior" rhetoric is as stupid as it sounds.

Quote from: Catelf;629041I 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.

I appreciate your attempts at mediation, but when it coems down to it there's a fundamental impossibility of communication, as Traveller is unaware of and obviously doesn't understand the style of roleplaying I advocate. The fact he think its 'bizarre' shows that he's ignorant of the majority of roleplaying's history.

QuoteThis 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.

Oh, we do, on a very fundamental level, in that I believe rules are for the most part the least importance and are merely there to serve as a tool for the GM for his job, whereas Traveller clearly believes that the rules are "Laws" that should be obeyed by the GM as much as the players, and that the GM exists primarily as, how did he put it? Custodian to the rules? He also cannot conceive of why players wouldn't need to know the rules, suggesting he really doesn't understand the difference between a player who makes choices as a living person in a shared imagined space, rather that he's only ever played to the rules. Its fine if thats what he wants, but it certainly should not be the standard line or definition of a GM, as its an exceptionally limited and obtuse view of roleplaying.

I dunno, this 'rules as God' PoV seems to be getting more and more common online in the last few years. Is this what WoTC has done to gamers?

Quote from: TristramEvans;629118So build a better mousetrap.

None of your examples have any relevance to RPgs, because there's no such thing as an objective measurement of fun. If someone has more fun with a game published in 78 than they do with one published in 2010, then the older game is objectivelly better for their group. But you're whole "everyone needs to have fun my way which is clearly superior" is as stupid as it sounds.

I don't know who you are responding to, but whoever it is holds completely different opinions than I do.

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?

The GM was wrong for making it 30d6. They should have said "okay you're character dies", and that's that.. A Kilometer high cliff is instant death for any living being. They'd die before they hit the ground, and HP certainly don't enter into it. Moreover the player was in the wrong from the getgo for "playing the rules" instead of "playing the character". Its bad roleplaying and an incredibly stupid decision.

The player wouldn't have made the decision for their character to jump off the cliff without also being aware of the rules.[/quote]

Meaning the player wasn't roleplaying. Exactly why I advocate games where the players don't need to know the rules: so they make decisions in-character and as if they are actually involved in real events instead of simply "playing a videogame".

QuoteIf 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.

It illustrates a situation where , if a GM accepts the RAW as a limitation to their role as arbiter and judge, it leads to bad GMing.

QuoteWhether 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.

Whether you like it or not, many people do play with the GM as having final authority. This is, in my experience, and overwhelmingly good thing. I'd rather have a game with a creative, intelligent GM capable of making common sense rulings and confident enough to allow their judgment supersede the limitations of any ruleset based on in-game context than one who simply arbitraily enforced the rules even when they made no sense like a "by the book" banal police officer anyday.

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. 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.

again, played this way for 30 years, and my group has tons of fun. I'm in pretty high demand as a GM, currently running 2 weekly games, 1 bi-weekly game, 1 monthly game and innumerable one-shots at any given time. You make the assumption players will object to rulings from a GM, but that only applies to a very limited percentage of players who don't trust GMs or engage solely in tournament-style dungeoncrawl grinders.

Quote from: gleichman;629120I don't know who you are responding to, but whoever it is holds completely different opinions than I do.

The response was to you, but feel free to play dumb.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629122The response was to you, but feel free to play dumb.

Your response was dumb.

I have never claimed that people are not having fun when they say they are, or if I did- I misspoke in the heat of a debate and was wrong.

ADDED: Even worse is the claim that I somehow value 'fun' in relation to the date of the game- finding old game (like one from 78) worthless just because they're old or something is really odd as I'm long on record as playing only games from 1980...

I'll get round to the rest later but just to clear up a misconception

Quote from: RandallS;629103However, "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."

We aren't talking about the best way to GM. This isn't one of those many threads. We're identifying the role of the GM at this point, which is certainly doable.

Quote from: Benoist;629109It 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.

I suspect he didn't bold it because that isn't what was being said. The objection was and is to the concept that players should be actively discouraged from learning the rules.

If TE wasn't saying that, I'd appreciate a clarification.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629121A Kilometer high cliff is instant death for any living being.

That is factly wrong, as a quick search online would show.

And you wonder why I can't take you seriously...

Quote from: gleichman;629126That is factly wrong, as a quick search online would show.

Yes a quick search online shows that 99% of people die from any fall of over 30 feet.

Do you not know what a kilometer is? Were you perhaps mistaking it with a milimeter?

Quote from: gleichman;629124Your response was dumb.

I have never claimed that people are not having fun when they say they are, or if I did- I misspoke in the heat of a debate and was wrong.

ADDED: Even worse is the claim that I somehow value 'fun' in relation to the date of the game- finding old game (like one from 78) worthless just because they're old or something is really odd as I'm long on record as playing only games from 1980...

The point of an RPG is to have fun.

Therefor the game that provides the most fun for any one group is the best game for that group.

whereas you've continually argued that RPG systems have improved over time and that modern game systems are objectively better than older game systems.


The two PoV don't mesh.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629133Yes a quick search online shows that 99% of people die from any fall of over 30 feet.

Do you not know what a kilometer is? Were you perhaps mistaking it with a milimeter?

And that 1% means it's not impossible. Look up the record for living after a long fall, it's something like over 6 miles.

Given the D&D HP abstraction, and what it already doesn't allow due to the 'heroic' state of the characters, nitpicking falls (kilometer or not) is rather pointless. Better to complain about the whole game- at least then one is consistent and logical instead of beating a personal dead horse.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629134whereas you've continually argued that RPG systems have improved over time and that modern game systems are objectively better than older game systems.

I have never said that.

Both games I play was written in 1980, and I consider those games to be the best the RPG has ever offered.

Quote from: gleichman;629137And that 1% means it's not impossible.

Good enough for shits and giggles. Meaning the fraction of a chance is so small its not worth accounting for as anything besides "freak act of God".

QuoteGiven the D&D HP abstraction, and what it already doesn't allow due to the 'heroic' state of the characters, nitpicking falls (kilometer or not) is rather pointless. Better to complain about the whole game- at least then one is consistent and logical instead of beating a personal dead horse.

There's that too. Hit Points in earlier editions were abstractions that didn't represent a videogame "life meter", so they didn't apply to falls or other sources of unavoidable damage. But by the time of WoTC it seems Hit Points had been cannonized as "health points", whatever that means. Which means them increasing with each level is another way in which later editions turned D&D into a videogame.