Quote from: Blackhand;624074The Jazz thing is not a good analogy, because GM'ing is NOTHING like playing music.

Fair enough.

Quote from: Blackhand;624074It doesn't matter if the DM is good at making things up, it's the fact that he IS making things up as he goes in the first place.  The DM is a REFEREE...and if there is no material to referee...what's he doing?  Telling a story.

I think you are having a gross conceptual error here. When there is not a rule to cover a situation, then a GM must be able to make something up. That is why the person is a gamemaster and not just a referee.

And a story is the result of the gameplay that occurs. It is not happening simultaeniously.

Quote from: Blackhand;624074In other words, if all he says all the right things to make everyone have fun and feel good, and just changes rules on the fly (most of the time in the favor of the players or his "Story" which the players must suffer through) it's like...well..

That sort of play is more easily likened some sort of circle jerk with one guy in the middle shouting about elves, rather than almost any sort of musical art.

I agree, that would be a circle jerk, and a very very poor example of a gamemaster. One who has little to no talent for improvisation which in the Jazz analogy depends on the other people in the group. The Players are just as important to the experience of a game as the GM is.

Like anything else, excluded middle, extremes, etc.

Obviously, clear, concise rules that form a level of shared expectation is a good thing.  People do want to know what they're playing.  The assumption here is that we know the rules or if we don't, we trust the GM to, and arbitrate fairly.

However, there is a an extreme "GMs are bad" view at the core of a lot of new school games that uses rules not simply as a basis for play, but as an attempt to control social contract, in essence limit the damage a bad GM can do by doing away with the idea that in the end, the GM is the ultimate arbiter.

Doing away with this idea is what prevents Good GMing.  Unless you're at a con, there was a time when house rules were the norm.  The exact set of rules used at one table is different from another.  Knowing how to present the best version of the game you can for your table is a key part of GMing.  NOTE: this doesn't mean I, decision by decision, change my mind as to what rules we use, consistency is important.

Take the narrative control goal of wanting more control of things outside of your character,  mix it with the CharOp goal of wanting as many options as possible to be mandatory so I can guarantee my build, blend in the idea that the players need active rule protection from the GM, layer this over the idea of game Coherence and you have one gigantic shitcake that poisons good GMs.

The problem isn't number of rules, minis, grids, slide rules, cards or coin flips.

The problem is the rules are taking on a different Raison d'être that has nothing to do with "playing the game".  Changing base assumptions and definitions leads to confusion as to we're actually discussing.

Conley plays GURPS and fucking Harnmaster.  The mythical magical tea party guy who ignores all rules as he sees fit and decides based on a whim whether you succeed or fail doesn't exist, or if he does, that ain't Rob.

Black hand and his crew are heavy wargamers.  They play AD&D using the rules as is.  However, one of his players is gonna read a rule one way, a second is gonna read it a second, and he might read it a third.  They're not paralyzed with indecision because no one received the epiphany of the revelatory intent of the game designer.  Black hand is the GM.  He calls it, the game moves on, you wanna bitch still, do it after. Remember, you go to an official 40k event, they have JUDGES.  These guys are not slaves to rules.

So both of these guys are interested primarily in making the game work at the table, and having an agreed framework for judging task resoluion.  That's why they use rules.  They both follow rules, they both interpret rules.

It's player agendas that have nothing to with actually judging task resolution that lead to narrative control rules, social contract rules, CharOp mini game assumptions(like if it exists I can have it).  These are the agendas that lead to rule sets and supporting cultures which produce "screen monkeys" GMs whose purpose is to entertain the self-interest of the player while stroking the ego of the designer.

The problem is, once you establish even slight variations in how two role players see the rules that gets magnified when people start arguing to the extremes and "magical tea party", "cult of the designer", "show me on the mini where the bad GM touched you" becomes the view of the other guy.  It's two guys with 99% compatible political views arguing like they are Noam Chomsky and Dick Cheney.

Quote from: jeff37923;624066Agreed. I can always just go and play a MMORPG if I want limited choices and a lack of options.

What I had in mind are the players and DMs who take the precise mechanical rules as "holy writ", and largely don't follow the sections of the DMG (and other rulebooks) which cannot be codified into a precise set of dice rolls.  In such cases, the DM isn't much different than a computer.

Quote from: RPGPundit;623923System-mongling, at best, creates mediocre GMs, GMs who rely on system/rules as a substitute for personal confidence, game-management and group-management skills.

I think most people who defend the "trust the system" or "system as ultimate authority at the game table" paradigm actually realize that. It's just that they prefer to have mediocre games that theoretically cannot devolve into horrible games territory because the system will be there for players to complain when the GM gets things wrong rather than have a game with the GM as the final authority which can be great, mediocre, or horrible for them, depending on the GM's actual skill at running games.

It's basically an after-effect of "show us where the bad GM touched you", which rejects the notion that there must be some amount of trust and natural collaboration between players and GM to begin with, an after-effect that went awry and causes these people to throw out the baby with the bathwater, decrete "it must be this way, not that way, because RULES," and settle for mediocre yet predictable game play, instead of playing with people they can trust in the first place.

I don't think "trusting the system" is what you guys are really belly-aching about.

If a publisher actually did claim never to make a typo, never to make a formalism that's a candidate (at least in outlier cases) for the "Murphy's Rules" cartoon, and never make up something that sucks according to someone's idea of fun, I don't think anyone with enough grey cells to play a game would take it seriously for a moment.

Quote from: Benoist;624124I think most people who defend the "trust the system" or "system as ultimate authority at the game table" paradigm actually realize that. It's just that they prefer to have mediocre games that theoretically cannot devolve into horrible games territory because the system will be there for players to complain when the GM gets things wrong rather than have a game with the GM as the final authority which can be great, mediocre, or horrible for them, depending on the GM's actual skill at running games.

It's basically an after-effect of "show us where the bad GM touched you", which rejects the notion that there must be some amount of trust and natural collaboration between players and GM to begin with, an after-effect that went awry and causes these people to throw out the baby with the bathwater, decrete "it must be this way, not that way, because RULES," and settle for mediocre yet predictable game play, instead of playing with people they can trust in the first place.

For me personally I prefer to stick to the rules because it makes my games more fun. It's not about settling for a mediocre experience for fear of GM abuse. It's about choosing a system that will support the style of play I want to have, and then embracing it. 'The GM tells me a story' is just not a fun style of play for me, as player or GM; I either want to have challenge and exploration or I want to have players empowered to drive the plot along. Both of those playstyles benefit from a common set of rules expectations and are actively hindered by GM fudging.

Quote from: soviet;624139'The GM tells me a story' is just not a fun style of play for me, as player or GM

... hence, "tell us where the bad GM touched you." See, you can try to weasel your way out of a meaningful conversation about WHY the system becomes the final arbiter at the game table with flat, meaningless platitudes like "espousing my style of play" and "it's all about preferences, man"* but at the end of the day there are reasons why we each have the preferences we do (just like there are reasons which can be positively discussed why we hold the "opinions" we do, hence, just saying "it's just my opinion" is a flat platitude and a lame defense in and of itself), and that is what my post was ultimately about.

* This is like saying one plays a game "because it's fun," which automatically makes me go well, like... "duh?" Of course, we do play games for fun (I hope so, anyway). Now what "fun" is and why "fun" is fun for this or that individual, or this experience "more fun" than this other experience "that is less fun," is what these discussions are ultimately about.

Quote from: Benoist;624141... hence, "tell us where the bad GM touched you." See, you can try to weasel your way out of a meaningful conversation about WHY the system becomes the final arbiter at the game table with flat, meaningless platitudes like "espousing my style of play" and "it's all about preferences, man"* but at the end of the day there are reasons why we each have the preferences we do (just like there are reasons which can be positively discussed why we hold the "opinions" we do, hence, just saying "it's just my opinion" is a flat platitude and a lame defense in and of itself), and that is what my post was ultimately about.

* This is like saying one plays a game "because it's fun," which automatically makes me go well, like... "duh?" Of course, we do play games for fun (I hope so, anyway). Now what "fun" is and why "fun" is fun for this or that individual, or this experience "more fun" than this other experience "that is less fun," is what these discussions are ultimately about.

If you want a simple explanation of why I prefer to play (and GM) by the rules, here it is: I want to be surprised by what happens during play. Agreeing a common set of rules and sticking to them achieves that in two ways. Number one it means that the dice, not the GM, determine what happens, so things can go in unexpected directions rather than unfolding in a predictable way. And number two, it gives other players a clear and structured way of contributing to the game without having to appeal to the GM's authority or fit in with their expectations. I find that most roleplayers are very creative, and giving them more freedom to use that creativity creates a lot of fun surprises.

Note again that these are my preferences as both a GM and a player. I don't hate GMs. I am a GM.

If one person has a full (and secret?) veto over everything that happens then that person is the king of the game. I don't find that fun, even if I am the one who is king.

Quote from: soviet;624147If you want a simple explanation of why I prefer to play (and GM) by the rules, here it is: I want to be surprised by what happens during play.

Agreeing a common set of rules and sticking to them achieves that in two ways.

Number one it means that the dice, not the GM, determine what happens, so things can go in unexpected directions rather than unfolding in a predictable way.

Things do very much happen in unexpected ways when you play with a remotely decent GM. Which means you are relying upon the rules to ward you against the "bad GM who runs his game predictably." Hence: "Show us where the bad GM touched you."

(And incidentally, no chance for the mediocre GM running his games predictably to improve and run his own games not predictably in the future. Which is the point of the OP. Well done.)

Quote from: soviet;624147And number two, it gives other players a clear and structured way of contributing to the game without having to appeal to the GM's authority or fit in with their expectations.

"Without having to appeal to the GM's authority" = "Mother May I" = "I don't trust the GM to use his authority in consistent nor satisfying ways in the game" ==> "Show us where the bad GM touched you".

"Or fit in with their expectations" = "I don't want to have to play the same game as the GM and manage my own expectations to play a collaborative games with other people because they might be assholes so I prefer to entrust the rules as the arbiter to ward me against people I don't want to play with in the first place/assholes" ==> "Show us where the bad GM touched you."

Quote from: soviet;624147If one person has a full (and secret?) veto over everything that happens then that person is the king of the game. I don't find that fun, even if I am the one who is king.

= "Bad GM tyrants! Note that I am a Good GM, and even I wouldn't do such a thing if I were the GM!" ==> "Show us where the bad GM touched you."

QED.

You're just demonstrating why my first post and the OP were right, in fact.

Quote from: Benoist;624154Things do very much happen in unexpected ways when you play with a remotely decent GM. Which means you are relying upon the rules to ward you against the "bad GM who runs his game predictably." Hence: "Show us where the bad GM touched you."

(And incidentally, no chance for the mediocre GM running his games predictably to improve and run his own games not predictably in the future. Which is the point of the OP. Well done.)

"Without having to appeal to the GM's authority" = "Mother May I" = "I don't trust the GM to use his authority in consistent nor satisfying ways in the game" ==> "Show us where the bad GM touched you".

"Or fit in with their expectations" = "I don't want to have to play the same game as the GM and manage my own expectations to play a collaborative games with other people because they might be assholes so I prefer to entrust the rules as the arbiter to ward me against people I don't want to play with in the first place/assholes" ==> "Show us where the bad GM touched you."

QED.

You're just demonstrating why my first post and the OP were right, in fact.

I didn't think you would be worth trying to engage and you have proven me right. If you want to caricature everyone who plays differently to you as deluded and abused, knock yourself out. But I can't help notice that this is exactly the caricature of Ron Edwards that you present yourself as opposing. You'll be saying that I'm brain damaged next.

What you fail to understand is that a lot of the people who prefer this style of play are GMs. Seriously, do you think that these games only get used when disgruntled players stage a coup and put a gun to their GM's head?

However good a GM is, if they have a veto over everything that happens, what happens is going to be less surprising to them, right? When I GM I don't want to decide whether the player succeeds in his endeavours, I want to find out. I don't have a plot in mind that I need to enforce.

Quote from: soviet;624164However good a GM is, if they have a veto over everything that happens, what happens is going to be less surprising to them, right?

No, that's not actually true, because that's not how that works when you role play the world and don't have a "creative agenda" to begin with. When you are actually role playing, there are so many things that just happen spontaneously out of the game, that just spring out of the interactions around the table, in your own and your players' imaginations, out of your own mouth really, that you just can't imagine before hand. Games surprise me all the time, and I'm very much the kind of GM who has a control over the game as a referee, as opposed to the letter of the rules. That's what you apparently can't understand about the nature of role playing around a game table, as opposed to "story weaving" or some such.

Quote from: soviet;624164I didn't think you would be worth trying to engage and you have proven me right. If you want to caricature everyone who plays differently to you as deluded and abused, knock yourself out. But I can't help notice that this is exactly the caricature of Ron Edwards that you present yourself as opposing. You'll be saying that I'm brain damaged next.

Actually no. I don't think you are brain-damaged. I just think you are stubborn (as I am, I'll give you that), that you have an obvious agenda (because you've bought into the Forgisms that gave us stuff like System Matters and "the rules are the game, the game the rules", which in turn gave us games like the one you designed yourself, so you're pretty much neck-deep invested in the success of that rhetoric), and that you'll say pretty much anything and everything to throw the blame and suspicion around, including stuff like "of course, Ben's talking about actual real life child molestation and implying I'm brain-damaged, just like Ron!"

I do want to let you know the feeling's mutual, though: I too feel like it generally isn't worth my time to interact with you in the first place. With that said, I'll just go back to these other things I'd rather do, now. Thanks.

Quote from: Benoist;624154"Show us where the bad GM touched you".

I hope you don't do this alot it both condesending and kind of childish.

Alright it's clear the "pro-system" people and "anti-system" are arguing past eachother here.

So let's say that the GM is "playing the rules not game" and the party is say fighting some Rogues. Phil decides she want's to slide down the banister swing on the chandeliers or preform any other sort of acrobatic pirouette than tend to be brougt up when people talk about actions that rules don't easily model. The GM "plays the rules not the game" and comes up with something on the spot and Phil get's to do his fun thing. This is cool and I'm sure almost everyone is on board with that.

On the other hand let flip it turnways. Say during this same encounter Sam with his deep knowledge of the rules rembers that you can't sneak attack targets that have concealment so he casts Obscuring Mist in an attempt to make the encounter easier by turning off the Rogues best class feature. Now maybe the GM dosen't a 1st level spell having such a disproportionate effect on his encounter or just dosen't like Sam's face. He "plays the game not the rules" and the Rogues still get their sneak attack. This makes Sam very unhappy and he feels like he has less agency and in the future he might be less likely do try to be creative because he can't read the GM's mind to find out which of his creative ideas he is willing to let happen.

So when people say "play the rules not the game" that means diffrent things to diffrent people. When the OSR types talk about "giving GMs more freedom" they there talking about expaning horizons leting people act outside the ruleset. The thing is that when many people hear "play the game not the rules" from their GM feel that their horizons are not being expaned. If the GM is taking liberty with the rules than people often worry about their ability to act within the ruleset being compromised.

Quote from: soviet;624164However good a GM is, if they have a veto over everything that happens, what happens is going to be less surprising to them, right? When I GM I don't want to decide whether the player succeeds in his endeavours, I want to find out. I don't have a plot in mind that I need to enforce.

You assert the that the game is less surprising for the referee if the referee has a veto over things. I disagree. The referee is adjudicator, a good referee is a fair adjudicator. This mean while the veto exist it isn't the focus. The focus is on resolving what are the players doing in a way that is accurate and fair given the rules of the genre or setting.

Adjudication 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.

The veto is a consequence of the fact the players play characters whose abilities are limited. That the players can only act as their characters. I bring this up because the only alternative is that the players can act in other ways than as their characters. In general this boils down is a formal way of "making up stuff in the middle of a session".

I say this makes the games less surprising because there is a bias to stack the deck for one's character. Don't get me wrong, for the average player itis as blatant as using a fate point to gain a +5 sword. But rather  the player is more apt to alter things to cause positive consequences or his characters rather than negative consequences. It just human nature.

A referee doesn't have a vested interest in seeing one character succeed over the other. It is more likely that the ruling will be more fair and have a more realistic mix of positive and negative consequences.

Finally I have advocated in making sandboxes that the referee create a timeline of future events as if the player never existed. I stress that this timeline, this plot, is just a plan. Very similar to the process used by generals before a battle.

And like a battleplan, once the campaign starts and the player start making their choices it will and must be altered to reflect the changed circumstances if there is to be a fun campaign. A general who fails to alter his battleplan to reflect what has happened will lose the battle. A referee who fails to alter his timeline will have a campaign that will be a railroad and likely suck.

This process of the player acting and the referee deciding fairly the consequences means that the campaign will take surprising turns. The process is out of control of player and referee alike due to the free agency both sides possess.

For me this is not theoretical.  I been running campaign like this since the late 80s. I had elements of this since when I started when I was known as the referee who lets his players trash the setting.  I have NPCs with elaborate plots, plot out a timeline of events. Yet in the end the course of the campaign always winds up surprising me.

The players seem to have a good time. Time and time again, they tell me that they feel that were in a setting that has a life of it own and that it made their own victories all the sweeter because they overcame not just the immediate opposition but the immense tides they feel around them.

Quote from: soviet;624164I didn't think you would be worth trying to engage and you have proven me right. If you want to caricature everyone who plays differently to you as deluded and abused, knock yourself out. But I can't help notice that this is exactly the caricature of Ron Edwards that you present yourself as opposing. You'll be saying that I'm brain damaged next.

What you fail to understand is that a lot of the people who prefer this style of play are GMs. Seriously, do you think that these games only get used when disgruntled players stage a coup and put a gun to their GM's head?

However good a GM is, if they have a veto over everything that happens, what happens is going to be less surprising to them, right? When I GM I don't want to decide whether the player succeeds in his endeavours, I want to find out. I don't have a plot in mind that I need to enforce.

Well spoken.

Quote from: Looter Guy;623989Making shit up on the fly constantly is basically verbal masterbation in large groups...

Your games must be fantastically uncreative... or your masturbation extremely boring.