Quote from: jeff37923;624338So, because a single random table in an entire game can have bad results for Players it is a shit system to you? Not much earlier in this thread you were championing "let the dice fall where they may", what happened?

You said that a bad dice roll for a common occurrence causes a TPK. That doesn't sound like great design to me.

I play let the dice fall where they may, but I also pick my systems based on the kind of game I want. Playing a system that casually throws out TPKs for common occurences, when you don't want to have any TPKs at all, seems silly to me. Why play a system that you keep having to override?

Quote from: jeff37923;624333Because my sound judgement as a GM allows me to veto stupid shit that would be a campaign killer....

Having a chance of the PCs dying as a result of their active involvement and risk taking in the game, yes. Dying by just a bad dice roll for a common occurrance, no. That is where the judgement and improvisation ability of a good GM come in.

Do you think it common for "trust in the system" to mean that someone who considers something "stupid shit" harmful to fun will nonetheless refuse to veto it?

That is so far from common in my own experience that I don't recall having ever actually encountered it.

Quote from: soviet;624341You said that a bad dice roll for a common occurrence causes a TPK. That doesn't sound like great design to me.

I play let the dice fall where they may, but I also pick my systems based on the kind of game I want. Playing a system that casually throws out TPKs for common occurences, when you don't want to have any TPKs at all, seems silly to me. Why play a system that you keep having to override?

A one in a thousand chance does not seem casual or common to me. I donned my Viking Hat and changed the results to suit my liking because it happened at a what I would consider a very inappropriate time in the campaign. Sorry, but I believe that only an hour of game play before TPK by random die roll just doesn't cut it for entertainment and fun. It certainly does not mean that the system is a piece of shit.

Quote from: Phillip;624343Do you think it common for "trust in the system" to mean that someone who considers something "stupid shit" harmful to fun will nonetheless refuse to veto it?

That is so far from common in my own experience that I don't recall having ever actually encountered it.

HUH?

I admit, you lost me with this one.

Quote from: jeff37923;624345A one in a thousand chance does not seem casual or common to me. I donned my Viking Hat and changed the results to suit my liking because it happened at a what I would consider a very inappropriate time in the campaign. Sorry, but I believe that only an hour of game play before TPK by random die roll just doesn't cut it for entertainment and fun. It certainly does not mean that the system is a piece of shit.

If it's one in a thousand then I retract my earlier criticism of the game. Earlier you said it was a 10% chance of a TPK on a roll that was a common occurrence.

Quote from: soviet;624341Why play a system that you keep having to override?

Generally, one does not "keep having to override" it.

By starting with things that other people have made, to the extent that they are satisfactory, one saves the labor of starting from scratch. One need discard or alter a rule but once: then one has a new rule!

Quote from: soviet;624349If it's one in a thousand then I retract my earlier criticism of the game. Earlier you said it was a 10% chance of a TPK on a roll that was a common occurrence.

I think you are deliberately misreading me because

Quote from: jeff37923;624331You are talking about Classic Traveller.

d20 Traveller has different die rolls for a misjump. Once a ship has been determined to misjump, you then have to roll on a random table in which the top 10% of results are TPK catastrophic. All together, about a one in a thousand chance. My group just happened to roll particularly "well" that night.

is pretty damn clear. Bolding mine.

Quote from: jeff37923;624352I think you are deliberately misreading me because



is pretty damn clear. Bolding mine.

Not everything's a storygame conspiracy. I misread you is all. Apologies.

Quote from: estar;624176Adjudication can be straightforward during task resolution. Or quite fuzzy like when a character is trying to convince the council of elders and the referee has to decide their individual reactions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;624188"Without having to appeal to the GM's authority" is "I want the game rules to give me protection from the GM."  Pure and simple.

I think maybe a lot of the debate arises from the unique role a GM plays, at least for myself. As with many things RPG related, there isn't a direct comparison to other activities, and this isn't widely understood.

Rather than an adjudicator, referee or judge, the GM should be seen as a facilitator whose job is to bring the enjoyment of the group forward. That's a bit ephemeral as definitions go but it seems to fit. The first question the GM should be asking isn't "does this fit within the rules or the canon" or "will this further the plot I planned out", but "will this be more awesome".

It's not an adversarial or judicial role, the GM is as much a part of the group as any player, as much subject to the whims of the dice as anyone, unless it's an awesome killer (which isn't neccessarily the same thing as a group killer). This is what makes roleplaying different to shared narrative games as well; not only the connection players feel with their characters but the facilitation of play the GM creates while being subject to strictures beyond their control.

Quote from: The Traveller;624384I think maybe a lot of the debate arises from the unique role a GM plays

I agree. They have the burden of world-building or -interpretation, portraying a (potentially) vast array of NPC's, and learning and applying the rules.

GM's are given more responsibilities than players. Which is fine. The system works, and has worked for longer than I've been alive.

Given patience and tolerance on both sides, it does work. There's no need to diffuse GM responsibility, in the name of vaguely supported egalitarianism or any other reason. Certainly no need to encode it into the rules of a game.

More, giving other people the world-building or -interpretation duties of the GM makes roleplaying into simming, an undesirable outcome.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624387Given patience and tolerance on both sides, it does work. There's no need to diffuse GM responsibility, in the name of vaguely supported egalitarianism or any other reason. Certainly no need to encode it into the rules of a game.

Yes, exactly. I'm not sure if I'd segregate it into sides though, the GM should be seen as part of the group (although the GM's decisions might result in killing some or all of the group whether they like it or not, and this is a vital factor) to a great extent.

After that it just comes down to what kind of awesome you want to achieve, which should be understood before the game starts. If you're going for a political thriller, the GM can facilitate nuanced political thrills, horror has its own way of working, and pulp needs clean cut baddies and fast action scenes. Maybe in some cases the type of awesome might not be understood by the group before the game gets going, which can really work too if done right.

Although the GM does wear a lot of hats, when you put them all together it's not like any other role, although it does combine elements of these roles. The GM isn't really a judge, solely weighing the relative merits of arguments according to pre-existing rules, the GM isn't a referee ensuring fair play between competitors, since there aren't competitors, there's the group and the game.

I don't think there is any real equivalent in any other activity.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624387More, giving other people the world-building or interpretation duties of the GM makes roleplaying into simming, an undesirable outcome.

Agreed.

I'll add another thought, might be worth putting together a new thread on this interesting subject: what the group decides to do is de facto awesome. The group is acting out the roles of their characters within the framework of the rules and much more importantly the setting, their interpretation of these two elements and the resultant frisson is a huge part of what makes the game work.

Another part of the role of the GM is to decide how the setting should react to these actions, this may have been done in advance or on the fly. In the former case it's modular or plotted play, in the latter it would be sandbox play. There's no reason why these two mightn't be mixed in the same game to one degree or another. Also the GM can and should be proactive in some cases. Facilitating the awesome rather than the plot or the rules would be the main message in the complex relationship between group and GM though.

I'm not settled on a lot of this, just floating a few thoughts.

Quote from: The Traveller;624394I'll add another thought, might be worth putting together a new thread on this interesting subject: what the group decides to do is de facto awesome.

Over the years I've found that if the players aren't on the same page, the game frequently ends up collapsing several sessions later.

I've played in D&D games where it was mostly thespian types players dominating the game.  The powergamers of the group were very impatient with the thespian types, that they ended up walking out after a few sessions.

(Similar story with D&D games with the powergamers dominating the game, with the thespian types walking out several session later).

Quote from: ggroy;624400Over the years I've found that if the players aren't on the same page, the game frequently ends up collapsing several sessions later.

I've played in D&D games where it was mostly thespian types players dominating the game.  The powergamers of the group were very impatient with the thespian types, that they ended up walking out after a few sessions.

(Similar story with D&D games with the powergamers dominating the game, with the thespian types walking out several session later).

Hm, that seems like more of a personal taste problem than anything the GM could do something about really. No matter what happens someone's going to be annoyed, unless the players can be convinced to try out slightly different compromises in terms of play. And they should be open to at least making the effort in fairness, you get out what you put in with this hobby, as with most things.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624387More, giving other people the world-building or -interpretation duties of the GM makes roleplaying into simming, an undesirable outcome.

I'll quibble with you on this one because I have found that Players have more of an interest in the game if they have been allowed a reasonably free hand with creating their own backgrounds - which helps with the world-building since they tend to add details from their character's past to the setting. I have had a lot of success with this as long as the Players understand that I am the Editor of what goes into my campaign world - nothing too far off genre or setting theme. It allows the Players to have more of a stake in the game.