Quote from: The Traveller;629189There's too much of a borderland between setting and rules in some arguments here, the two are fairly distinct for the most part.

Well, what was in the D&D books? Details of this monster, that magic, the precise probability of this or that event occurring.

Some people don't mind (indeed prefer) knowing all that from the word go; maybe they are more common in the popularized-D&D demographic than in the early-1970s group of hobbyists.

For some other people, it's a "spoiler." It's less than getting a walk-through of an adventure game, yet still a case of an innocence that can be lost but once.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629201I haven't yet come across a system that actually models "physics" in a way that was still gameable, so I prefer to see the rules simply as a means of arbitrating Reality Clash between players.

I have two that do so well at it that I haven't seen a problem in decades (other than playtest for newly added rules).

And I've never seen an example online that was possible to duplicate in my games.

Quote from: Phillip;629205Well, what was in the D&D books? Details of this monster, that magic, the precise probability of this or that event occurring.

Some people don't mind (indeed prefer) knowing all that from the word go; maybe they are more common in the popularized-D&D demographic than in the early-1970s group of hobbyists.

For some other people, it's a "spoiler." It's less than getting a walk-through of an adventure game, yet still a case of an innocence that can be lost but once.

Differentiating the rules and the setting isn't a problem really.

The setting is what the players interact with through their characters.

The rules are how they interact with the setting.

Even setting-specific rules like insanity in CoC or half of Unknown Armies still fall under the same definition of rules. Conversely monsters and spells are part of the setting, despite often being placed in rulebooks.

Of course knowing all the stats of the monsters and spells can act as a spoiler but I wouldn't view either of those as being rules, they are setting, which the GM can and should mess with gleefully.

Quote from: The Traveller;629208Of course knowing all the stats of the monsters and spells can act as a spoiler but I wouldn't view either of those as being rules, they are setting, which the GM can and should mess with gleefully.

Trouble is, there wasn't a whole lot else in the original D&D set. Since the DM was left to make up most of the stuff I guess you would distinguish as "rules," the value of the booklets -- apart from conveying the basic concept, which T&T did with even less -- lay chiefly in the head start such material gave before one needed to invent new stuff.

Quote from: Phillip;629214Trouble is, there wasn't a whole lot else in the original D&D set.

I'm not terribly familiar with 1e, my acquaintance with D&D starts and ends with 2e/AD&D, and completely amazing it was too, even with a subpar ruleset (in my opinion). Nonetheless there wouldn't be anything which falls outside the categorisations of rules and setting given above. If the first release consisted mainly of monsters and spells, then of course the GM should feel free to meddle with those, but I would have no difficulty with the players knowing how to create characters, how to attack and act in combat, how to cast spells. The body of those spells and what they were fighting would be a different matter entirely.

Quote from: The Traveller;629168What I found bizarre is your insistence that players should be discouraged from learning the rules. Do you forbid anyone who has GMed that system from ever playing in your games? Because they're going to know the rules as well as you do.

I never said "discourage". simply "shouldn't need" to know the rules. If a player happens to know the rules to anyone ruleset though there's no obligation for me to conform to his interpretation of the rules. what the players shouldn't be doing, in my games, is playing teh rules rather than playing their characters.

QuoteShow me once where I said the GM was a custodian to anything. Show me, please. No? So again it's easier to make up arguments to respond to than deal with what's actually being said, but it doesn't actually get anywhere.

Rather than going back and rereading through posts I took a guess and very specifically noted it as such (hence the repeating of the question in the post and the use of question marks). I don't recall your exact wording, I was not attempting to put words in your mouth. I thought the meaning was pretty much analogous.

QuoteI reckon you've had similar arguments with so many people that you can't tell the difference at this stage.

No, just you and a few random posters on here. IRL I've never encountered your opinion among anyone I've gamed with.

QuotePlayers can be aware of the rules, players most often are aware of the rules. This is a reality which means that fixes for shitty rulesets as well as on-the-fly adjustments for Awesome should probably be agreed upon by everyone.

But "players most often are aware of the rules" doesn't support the conclusion that "should probably be agreed upon by everyone". If I chose to run a game, then I pitch the game to anyone I'd like to play. This pitch is tailored to the players based on what kind of games interest them and my opinion of how well they'd manage in that type of game. Beyond that, I will then explain any rules the players need to know, if any. Usually, this only amounts to how to read the character sheet and the general resolution mechanic (dice pool, roll vs TN, etc), if the player happens to know the rules set is immaterial to how they play their character. Beyond that, I dont discuss rules with the players. They may challenge rulings from time (though usually this never amounts to more than me explaining why. Thats generally enough to satisfy anyone), but they can only do so from a character perspective.

QuoteIn my experience if the ruleset is consistently in need of on-the-fly adjustments you're playing with a shitty ruleset.

Sure, if that were the case. But "adjustments" are different than making a ruling. I use rules lite systems that cover the basics, because I'm capable of doing the rest on my own, and its easier and faster than looking up a rule in a book, and generally superior as its tailored to the specific context of in-game events.


Again, unless you are saying you make characters spin on their heads regularly for the hell of it, you're answering a different argument than the one I made. [/quote]

Your argument was: But the GM that does this won't have a group of players for long. So there are real restrictions to that power.

And I answered by pointing out this hasn't been the case at all, in my experience.

QuoteYou're saying that true immersion is best reached if the GM handles all of the rule decisions and indeed the operation of almost everything except the dice and the PC's sheets.

Yes

QuoteThis is because the singular vision of a GM and the lack of immersion-snags work best for you.

Well, it works because every time a player has to think about the rules they are, in that moment, no longer immersed in their character. Its like method acting. The reason that method actors don't break character even when not being filmed is because the longer they stay in character, the more natural and complete the immersive experience is.

QuoteYou're saying the GM should arbitrarily change rules as they see fit,

If its "as they see fit" it shouldn't be "arbitrary",.

Quotewhich a) works fine if the players are unaware of the rules and b) the GM is able to deal with that.

I'd say it works fine as long as the players trust the GM, whether they happen to know the rules-set used or not.

QuoteAnd not all GMs are, not out of malice but because rule changes can have knock on effects which aren't immediately apparent among other things.

Depends entirely on the system. One of the reasons I intensely dislike 4th edition. you cant tinker with anything, because the morass of rules is all part of a whole. I have no use for a game like that. But yeah, its also about the confidence of the GM.

QuoteI'm saying that rules don't interfere with immersion if the players are sufficiently familiar with them,

That would really depend on the rules themselves, and , again, if the players are playing their role or playing the rules. the example of a player thinking he can walk over a KM-high cliff because of his HP total is a pretty blatant example of the latter.

Quoteand it is more helpful than otherwise if the players help to uphold the rules themselves, at a minimum in terms of taking some of the strain off the GM.

I think "upholding the rules" is also a circumstance which would really only occur in games like 4e, where EVERYthing is arbitrated by a rule.



 

QuoteAlso the rules are written down, there's nothing to stop the players reading them.

I'm not actively trying to keep any players from learning the rules, but rules lawyering isnt a desirable trait in a player.

I

Quotef the GM causes bad things to happen to the group by changing the rules, the players might rightfully feel hard done by.

sure, but thats an example of bad GMing,. I don't make a ruling just to fuck with the players. Its not about being a dick. In fact, 9 times out of ten, if I make a ruling is going to be in the player's favour.

QuoteThis is why I feel the cooperative aspect is important. How you would deal with that situation is not neccessarily how other GMs might deal with it, and can lead to all sorts of problems, which is why I'd be cautious about including it in the basic definition of the role of the GM.

I don't think there needs to be a standardized expectation of GMing. every Gm has their own style,. thats not something I consider a bad thing. Because one GM might interpret or apply rules differently than another, isnt a reason for players to be upset, unless they are stepping out of character and basing their decisions on the expectation that a GM is going to rule the same way as another. Which again, would be them playing the rules rather than playing their character.

QuoteThe bottom line is however if you're constantly swapping rules around you need a better set of rules.

I guess it depends what you mean by "constant". Rules dont play a large role in most games I play. I've gone entire sessions without more than one roll of the dice. I'm not talking about a GM sitting there completely altering the rules every minute. Again, I would consider that bad GMing.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629218I never said "discourage". simply "shouldn't need" to know the rules. If a player happens to know the rules to anyone ruleset though there's no obligation for me to conform to his interpretation of the rules. what the players shouldn't be doing, in my games, is playing teh rules rather than playing their characters.

"In my games," being an important caveat IMO.

Cats who roll some other way might as well rock on, because it's not like anybody (except maybe a rare real nut case) is gonna be busting in to hassle them. If I don't dig your game, I'm not obligated to play it (and vice-versa).

Quote from: Phillip;629223"In my games," being an important caveat IMO.

Yes, it just gets annoying to say it over and over. Please assume that anything I say I am merely stating what works for me in my games and with the groups I've played with over the years. I am not saying every group needs to game this way.

QuoteIf I don't dig your game, I'm not obligated to play it (and vice-versa).

Sure. And I've dropped a lot of games because I didn't dig the GM or the gamestyle. Better no gaming than bad gaming. at the same time, I've been relatively lucky in that Ive never had trouble finding (or creating) gamers I get on with in any of the places I've lived. Might have something to do with me chosing primarily to live in large metropolitan cities.

Okay forget every other tangent, this is the real issue:

Quote from: TristramEvans;629218Well, it works because every time a player has to think about the rules they are, in that moment, no longer immersed in their character. Its like method acting. The reason that method actors don't break character even when not being filmed is because the longer they stay in character, the more natural and complete the immersive experience is.

I get what you're saying, all I'm saying is that there isn't a substantial difference between players who are unaware of the rules and players that respond to the rules by reflex due to familiarity in terms of immersion. In every game the players must be minimally aware of the rules, and quite often become far more familiar with the rules.

As such it's an exercise in futility to ignore this player knowledge, and the better option should be to accept that in ambiguous cases the GM has final arbitration, but in other cases it should be an environment of cooperation.

What I'm seeing here is either a useful middle ground OR an option for a different type of interaction between the GM and the rules. And that's all we're discussing here, the GM and the rules.

Quote from: TristramEvans;629218I don't think there needs to be a standardized expectation of GMing.

But there should be a standardised understanding of the role of the GM, plus a voluminous body of advice on how to deal with the many facets of GMing and the challenges thereof.

I'm getting tired of the squabbles in this thread ....
And why shouldn't i?
The OP wants to define the GM/DM, but essentially starts by removing the "M" from the titles.

And then, someone with opposite wiewpoint to the OP, but yet shares many opinions, just expressed slightly differently ... but have any of the two realized that yet?
So they have been bickering about details in wordings, thinking it stands for more than it does ....
And some just join in the bickering.

Oh, and let's not forget the one that at least someone said was "trolling", but is really just ... to hard, perhaps even impossible to reason with, because of his near set-in-stone-like opinions on things.

Why should i care ....

Quote from: The Traveller;629230What I'm seeing here is either a useful middle ground OR an option for a different type of interaction between the GM and the rules. And that's all we're discussing here, the GM and the rules.

At last!
..... by the way, it is both middleground and options for different kinds of interaction between the GM and the rules.

Quote from: The Traveller;629230But there should be a standardised understanding of the role of the GM....

First, why is such a "standardized understanding" needed?

Second, would a "standardized understanding" favor any style of play or style of GMing over another? (Your current proposal certainly seems to.) Would a "standardized understanding" rule out ANY style of play or style of GMing?

If the answer to the second set of questions is anything other than "Not only no, but HELL NO!", I (and I expect many others) would want nothing to do with it even if we were convinced that a "standardized understanding of the role of the GM" was needed.



Would I be expected to conform to this standard if it existed when I GMed games with my own group Or any other person GMed games for there own group)? (Warning: if the answer to this last question is anything but "Not only no, but hell no" I want nothing to do with such a "standardized understanding"

Quote from: RandallS;629237First, why is such a "standardized understanding" needed?

Quote from: The Traveller;628851Why?
Problems are created when neither the group nor the GM understand the true role of the GM. The GM isn't the Game Master. This is a difficulty with the hobby, an assumption that if you just give someone a rulebook and some dice they'll get everything a GM is meant to be by intuition. It doesn't work and leads to bad games.

Plus it will be of use when introducing new people to the hobby, which is important to me.

Quote from: RandallS;629237Second, would a "standardized understanding" favor any style of play or style of GMing over another? (Your current proposal certainly seems to.) Would a "standardized understanding" rule out ANY style of play or style of GMing?

Preferably no (see below). My assertion is that there are certain things in common to the role of GM regardless of game, style or preference. As I mentioned earlier we managed to get pretty deep into the role of the GM before hitting a hurdle, which is the interaction of the GM with the rules. Now we're hammering out a useful definition of that, which doesn't invalidate anything previously mentioned.

Quote from: RandallS;629237Would I be expected to conform to this standard if it existed when I GMed games with my own group Or any other person GMed games for there own group)? (Warning: if the answer to this last question is anything but "Not only no, but hell no" I want nothing to do with such a "standardized understanding"

Do what you like, but as mentioned previously as much as possible we're trying to elaborate the role of the GM based on self evident truths, such as that the GM can't nuke the whole universe arbitrarily or they stop being GMs. It's all laid out earlier.

Of course it should go without saying that if a "style of GMing" includes arbitrarily nuking the entire universe as part of the MO, I don't think it should be included in the standard definition of the role of GM.

Quote from: The Traveller;629242My assertion is that there are certain things in common to the role of GM regardless of game, style or preference. As I mentioned earlier we managed to get pretty deep into the role of the GM before hitting a hurdle, which is the interaction of the GM with the rules. Now we're hammering out a useful definition of that, which doesn't invalidate anything previously mentioned.

I find you very peculiar, Traveller.

....
Anyway, I must point out, that by saying "The Game Master is not the Game Master", you Do remove several styles of playing rpg, of which several are, if not the most common ones, then clearly among the most common ones that works.

This is not depending on GM's being enforcing things on the players and/or player characters whenever the GM so likes, but on that others clearly define the "Master" part differently than you.
It is very much like the "Final say" - thing.
It must be used in moderation, and when it is appropriate, either due to percived flaws in the rules, to override rules discussions, or because it suits the setting and/or the genre and/or the style of play.
If it is abused, or used when it is unappropriate and so on, then that is being a bad GM, and it should not be endorsed.

Quote from: The Traveller;629242Of course it should go without saying that if a "style of GMing" includes arbitrarily nuking the entire universe as part of the MO, I don't think it should be included in the standard definition of the role of GM.

I've arbitrarily (as in GM decision based on what was happening in the game) nuked entire universes before. Of course, said universes were part of a multiverse and the play involved war between various multi-universial factions. This, of course, is why I oppose "standardizing GM stuff, rules stuff, and the like for tabletop RPGs. Every attempt to do so I've ever seen effectively rules out campaigns, play styles, and the like that some people out there consider fun. You take a wide-open anything can go if a group likes it idea (tabletop roleplaying) and put in a box to make it all nice and managable/standard. Unfortunately, no matter how big the box, it leaves something that is fun to some outside the box.