TheRPGSite

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

And worse yet, systems that essentially demand that the rules take precedent over GM authority end up hobbling potentially-great GMs by reducing them to mediocrity.  System is, at best, an equalizing force; and those particular game philosophies that insist on removing the tyranny of the GM in favor of the tyranny of the system tend to produce that very special kind of equalizing force in the same style as, say, a soviet bureaucracy.

RPGPundit

I agree with the spirit but the above is a little too simplistic to be of practical application. Rules are a tool to aid consistency. And are a compact format to communicate how various aspects of the setting works.

The human referee is THE feature that sets tabletop roleplaying apart from other forms of roleplaying games. What important for individual referees is to know there are a variety of techniques and tools to use. That they should to take the time to learn and consider which work the best for them given their abilities and interest.

As for me personally I run my campaigns pretty much by the book when I can.

However my use of the rules are limited to adjudicating to what I call the physics and capabilities aspects of the game. Like how strong a character is, what knowledge of spells they have, combat, etc. The roleplaying and the rest of it I use my own discretion. For those rulings I consider what it would be like if it was happening before my eyes. Then act or rule accordingly. The same for physics or capabilities when a situation comes up that the rules don't cover. I also favor emulation over meta-gaming.

Great GMs can get away with any sort of rubbish system, it's not much of an issue.

But by definition most GMs are ordinary, which is just another word for mediocre. I see nothing wrong if a system tries to help us ordinary GMs get by.

Quote from: estar;623926Rules are a tool to aid consistency.

Here's my design theory: rules are training wheels.

You give the core of the system, with solid examples, enough to get a GM through the first few sessions (or maybe a few more). By then, they'll have learned the system well enough to begin eyeballing it on their own.

I asume GM's will want to, and need to, adjudicate things on their own. My job, in my amateur game designer role, is to make that easy. Give them the structure, encourage them to learn, then try and get out of their way.

From my Infinity Alpha Rules (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=25502) thread:

"Each Challenge Rating is associated with a label and a catchphrase. The label and phrase are designed to give gamemasters a feel for how difficult something is.

"With a little experience, GM's are expected to eyeball CR's, rather than referring to a static list every time. I rely on their judgment to make the call.

"And, if a GM isn't comfortable with that, they can always fall back on the CR charts in the skill descriptions."

Training wheels.

Too late. 3e fucked everything. Rules are tools to pummel the GM when your  build does not get whatever it wants. We saw some of that shit attitude way back when with GURPS and HERO, but now its defacto for large segments of the hobby.

But hey, this is good for me because those players avoid my games at cons and instead I get the people who want to have fun first and rules third.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623935Here's my design theory: rules are training wheels.

You give the core of the system, with solid examples, enough to get a GM through the first few sessions (or maybe a few more). By then, they'll have learned the system well enough to begin eyeballing it on their own.

I wouldn't take that as a given. I could (and have) run a decent RPG session cold without any rules in front of me. But god help me if you ask me to look at my notes and try to make the same rulings a week later for the same situation. I don't know why that this when I have the histories of a dozen worlds, including our own, stuffed in my head. But it always been an issue for me.

Some otherwise decent referee are terrible at rules consistency. I put myself in that category. Which is why I find systems I consider well designed. Learn the Table of Contents to know where to look things up, and run it pretty much by the book. If I run it long enough I will have some cheat sheets that will minimize cracking open the actual book.

My view the trick is learning where the rules should end and roleplaying starts.

I agree that rules over the DM don't ever result in anything worthwhile, particularly when the ability to 'misread' 'unclear' rules comes into play.

There should be a common framework of rules that everyone shares, such as basic combat rules and order-of-operations in a turn - things that indicate we're all playing the same game and are used in virtually every single play session - then the rules need to get the hell out of the way.  Suggestion guidelines masquerading as rules do facilitate online discussion, since most people will deviate from the guideline in reasonably predictable ways (such as the oft-encountered 'natural 20 is a crit' variant), but 'rules' in an 'RAW'-manner will never be clean or clear enough to make adjudication unnecessary, particularly in games with some degree of immersion-consistency (for example, the 'tripping a gelatinous cube' argument).

I think so-called 'crunch' should be as light as possible to promote the widest range of adjudication and the least amount of unforeseen complications.  I also don't think 'crunch' and 'fluff' should be considered different things as a default.

Obviously, then, molding great GMs is not a game design goal for the designers... :D

-clash

Quote from: estar;623943I wouldn't take that as a given.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not disagreeing, mind you, just not sure what you mean.

I don't think perfect consistency is possible. I can't do it, I certainly don't expect anyone else to. As a GM I made a big error in the final confrontation of a 2-year campaign, that killed a character. It was simply an error, one I regret.

My idea with building a rule set is that I'm providing a (hopefully) solid framework for making rulings, with the assumption that the GM will use the rules as guidelines and adjudicate corner cases on his own. (As well as adjust rules to match his group's play style.) Perfect consistency isn't possible, "good enough" for his group is, well, good enough for me.

But, like I said, I'm not sure I understood your point.

Quote from: Spinachcat;623940Too late. 3e fucked everything. Rules are tools to pummel the GM when your  build does not get whatever it wants. We saw some of that shit attitude way back when with GURPS and HERO, but now its defacto for large segments of the hobby.

But hey, this is good for me because those players avoid my games at cons and instead I get the people who want to have fun first and rules third.

It only an issue if you let it be an issue. This is the age old problem of the rules lawyer.  I firmly establish the fact I am the referee and I make the final adjudication and it works regardless of the type of game or venue I run including D&D 4e at a convention.

Now I will be honest and say to do that I employ several techniques. It isn't as simple as declaring "My word is the law." What I do is basically establish that I will listen them, but also point out they don't know everything, and that when I run a game you are act as if you are there as your character.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623948I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not disagreeing, mind you, just not sure what you mean.

But, like I said, I'm not sure I understood your point.

That some referees, like me, are more by the book than others because of choice. I do it to overcome consistency problems.

Quote from: Spinachcat;623940Too late. 3e fucked everything. Rules are tools to pummel the GM when your  build does not get whatever it wants. We saw some of that shit attitude way back when with GURPS and HERO, but now its defacto for large segments of the hobby.

If I wanted to play everything strictly by-the-book rules, then I wouldn't even bother with tabletop rpg games.

Much easier to just play some rogue games like Nethack, Sword of Fargoal, etc ...  (If one wants to know all the "rules" mechanics of such a rogue game like Nethack, all one has to do is just read the source code (http://www.nethack.org/v343/download-src.html)).

Quote from: estar;623951That some referees, like me, are more by the book than others because of choice. I do it to overcome consistency problems.

I understand now. The same rules that act as training wheels will also be present for GM's who aren't comfortable with eyeballing it.

Well-designed rules serve in both capacities. They don't leave GM's high and dry, forcing them to wing it, but they don't overly constrain them either.

That's my theory, at least. I'll see how well I can live up to it.

Quote from: flyingmice;623947Obviously, then, molding great GMs is not a game design goal for the designers... :D

The top 3 RPGs need to make this a goal since they are the entry to the hobby and great GMs are how you expand your brand and increase sales.

More good GMs = more RPG players = $$$ for the industry

Quote from: estar;623949It only an issue if you let it be an issue.

It's not an issue for me because I drop the Old School DM bomb on the table regardless of what I am running. But I know that its a BIG issue for a great many GMs (based on how often it comes up on forums).

And you are right, rules lawyers aren't new. I was headsmacking those fuckers in 1e. They are why I dropped 1e to return to 0e. But 3e empowered the little bitches like never before. 4e less so in some ways (more talk about DM control), but moreso in others (magic items tied to builds).

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.  

And worse yet, systems that essentially demand that the rules take precedent over GM authority end up hobbling potentially-great GMs by reducing them to mediocrity.  System is, at best, an equalizing force; and those particular game philosophies that insist on removing the tyranny of the GM in favor of the tyranny of the system tend to produce that very special kind of equalizing force in the same style as, say, a soviet bureaucracy.

RPGPundit

I think you may misunderstand the reason that this type of system arose.  It came about because of sponsored play (e.g. Living Greyhawk) where it was needed to make it possible to shift between tables and have the same rules apply.  It was open to anyone so the informal enforcement that I see with FlailSnails (i.e. don't misbehave) don't really work.

It made sense in that context and many people seen to have really enjoyed that type of play (I don't but I warm up to people slowly).  

It is, admittedly, a bad idea to import it to a game with a GM and a group of friends.  The rules can easily get in the way of the GMs vision.  In that case, the metric is "is everyone having fun" and there is more freedom to "paint outside the lines".  

But great art can be done with constraints (think of Haikus).  It can also be free and boundless.  Both are valid ways to approach things.

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.  

Or, reliance on GM's rather than on the rules creates extremely poor GM's that think they can make shit up as they go along, handwaving all player refutations that the rules make things possible, instead believing that somehow they are the final word on how the system does or does not work.

Bullshit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;623923And worse yet, systems that essentially demand that the rules take precedent over GM authority end up hobbling potentially-great GMs by reducing them to mediocrity.  System is, at best, an equalizing force; and those particular game philosophies that insist on removing the tyranny of the GM in favor of the tyranny of the system tend to produce that very special kind of equalizing force in the same style as, say, a soviet bureaucracy.

I find that to be utter horseshit.

As a GM, I think I'm better than average.  Part of that is because I enforce the rules, not bullshit fiat.

System is the equalizer, yes.  It has to be consistent, and the players MUST be allowed to use the rules as they are presented in the manuals.

The soviet allegory is piss-stained as well.

Granted, it might work better if your players don't know the rules and you only have one manual.  

Provided, of course that the GM doesn't know the rules either.

Any GM in my club who espoused this nonsense would quickly find themselves voted off the island for a GM who knows his game and uses the rules to adjudicate actions, rather than NOT know how the system deals with certain actions and just making stuff up on the cuff.  That said, my club has already voted such GM's off, so we don't have that problem.

The GM has much better things to do.

Making shit up on the fly constantly is basically verbal masterbation in large groups...

Quote from: Soylent Green;623932Great GMs can get away with any sort of rubbish system, it's not much of an issue.

But by definition most GMs are ordinary, which is just another word for mediocre. I see nothing wrong if a system tries to help us ordinary GMs get by.

Clearly this only means there should be fewer GMs.

With rules, a lot of people mistake "comprehensive" for "good".
 
Also, the first rule of Rifts is that we're not really using the rules for Rifts.

Many game systems are full of unbalanced options, poorly worded rules, and other things which can impact the fun and enjoyment of players.  In many cases, communication between players and DM Fiat are often needed.

A unified ruleset is good to have, for it provides a common means of understanding for everybody.  If the DM needs to use Fiat too many times, or needs to do it to fix big flaws in a system, then there's a problem.

However, the DM is a human, and subject to the follies of poor judgment and personal biases.  I know I've been subject to this a few times, but I try to learn from my mistakes and rectify problems.

An ideal solution, to me, is not to take a "DM is always right" or a "trust the system" idea, but to have an open-door policy towards the problems players might have.  If I don't understand a rule, I'll ask a player for help in interpretation.

If a player disagrees with my interpretation of the rules, or with another player, I'll hear their cases and make judgments based upon circumstances.  If nobody can make sense of the rule, or if the rule is so bad that it's going to make the game a chore, I'll rule in the way most favorable to group enjoyment.

I rarely do this, but this is how I would do things if the rule problem is particularly prominent.  If the rule is minor and/or inconsequential ("how much does a jar of olives cost?") I'll just Fiat it.

"Trust the system" can often effectively mean "Just get on with the game."

Whatever "the system" is, and whatever its origin, if it has earned our trust then it saves a lot of discussion over quotidian matters.

In my regular group, when the players say, "Hey, G.O.D., the ruling on this is already thus and so," whoever happens to be refereeing goes with it unless there's some really compelling reason to make an exception.

That's what stuff like "Roll x+y or higher to score a hit" is for: to avoid needing to reinvent the wheel all the time, so we can spend our time on more exciting things.

Quote from: flyingmice;623947Obviously, then, molding great GMs is not a game design goal for the designers... :D

-clash

Nor should it be, game designers should design games.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need a seperate document entirely, a 'GM's Bible', filled with the accumulated wisdom of near a half century of GMing. That what to do when players don't show up thread is a good example. It should have been done long before now.

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.  

And worse yet, systems that essentially demand that the rules take precedent over GM authority end up hobbling potentially-great GMs by reducing them to mediocrity.  System is, at best, an equalizing force; and those particular game philosophies that insist on removing the tyranny of the GM in favor of the tyranny of the system tend to produce that very special kind of equalizing force in the same style as, say, a soviet bureaucracy.

RPGPundit

I agree with what you say although I would use milder language. But I also feel that anyone with a jot of life experience and self-awareness will call bullshit on a system before they are hamstrung by it.

It's not that "Trust the System" leads to poor GMs, or even that "don't Trust the System" when written in a book leads to good GMs (or good people). It's more that people with independent thoughts never automatically trust any system.

If all of us were wiped off the face of the earth and only the "Trust the System" dogma remained I have faith that new people of character would come from the outside with the confidence to ask why should I trust your system.

I tend to look at rules as tools.

I can give someone a great hammer, and they can still be a shitty carpenter.

Conversely, even a great carpenter will get frustrated with shoddy tools.

And while I can use a hammer to get a screw in, it's better for me to use a screwdriver, since it's built for the job.

Quote from: estar;623926The human referee is THE feature that sets tabletop roleplaying apart from other forms of roleplaying games. What important for individual referees is to know there are a variety of techniques and tools to use. That they should to take the time to learn and consider which work the best for them given their abilities and interest.

This is a concept that just keeps getting overlooked.

Quote from: ggroy;623954If I wanted to play everything strictly by-the-book rules, then I wouldn't even bother with tabletop rpg games.

Agreed. I can always just go and play a MMORPG if I want limited choices and a lack of options.

Quote from: Spinachcat;623966It's not an issue for me because I drop the Old School DM bomb on the table regardless of what I am running. But I know that its a BIG issue for a great many GMs (based on how often it comes up on forums).

Just because something shows up often on forums does not necessarily mean it is a problem out in the Real World.

Quote from: Spinachcat;623966And you are right, rules lawyers aren't new.

No shit?

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

Depends on the imagination and talent of the GMs involved. To use a musical analogy, improvisation in Jazz is transcendental to the performance at its best and is merely interesting at its worst.

Quote from: Novastar;624056I tend to look at rules as tools.

I can give someone a great hammer, and they can still be a shitty carpenter.

Conversely, even a great carpenter will get frustrated with shoddy tools.

And while I can use a hammer to get a screw in, it's better for me to use a screwdriver, since it's built for the job.

I also agree with this.

Just to get my point across in a more succinct manner, quoted below is the Wikipedia definition of Improvisation in Jazz.

Quote from: Improvisation in JazzImportance of improvisation

While jazz is considered difficult to define, improvisation is consistently regarded as being one of its key elements. The centrality of improvisation in jazz is attributed to its presence in influential earlier forms of music: the early blues, a form of folk music which rose in part from work songs and field hollers of rural blacks. These were commonly structured around a repetitive call-and-response pattern, but early blues was also highly improvisational. Although European classical music has been said to be a composer's medium in which the performer is sometimes granted discretion over interpretation, ornamentation and accompaniment, the performer's primary goal is to play a composition as it was written. In contrast, jazz is often characterized as the product of group creativity, interaction, and collaboration, that places varying degrees of value on the contributions of composer (if there is one) and performers. Summarizing the difference, pianist Earl Hines in 1975 remarked that,

"When I was playing classical music I wouldn't dare get away from what I was reading. If you've noticed, all of the symphonic musicians, they have played some of those classical tunes for years but they wouldn't vary from one note — and every time they play they have to have the music. So that's why for some classical musicians, it's very difficult for them to try to learn how to play jazz."

In jazz, therefore, the skilled performer will interpret a tune in very individual ways, never playing the same composition exactly the same way twice. Depending upon the performer's mood and personal experience, interactions with other musicians, or even members of the audience, a jazz musician may alter melodies, harmonies or time signature at will. The importance of improvisation has led some critics to suggest that even Duke Ellington's music was not jazz, because it was arranged and orchestrated. On the other hand, the solo piano "transformative versions" of Ellington compositions by Earl Hines were described by Ben Ratliff, the New York Times jazz critic, as being "as good an example of the jazz process as anything out there".

The composition and the instruments are the rules of a particular game system. The GM is the Jazz musician in this case and may improvisationally expand upon those rules in adjucation to the extent of that GM's ability to make the same game played by many to be that GM's own unique game to be experienced. The rules are the starting point and define the game, the execution of those rules by the GM interacting with the Players are what defines the game experience.

The Jazz thing is not a good analogy, because GM'ing is NOTHING like playing music.

It 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.

In 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.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;623991With rules, a lot of people mistake "comprehensive" for "good".
 
Also, the first rule of Rifts is that we're not really using the rules for Rifts.

The Rifts that can be perceived is not the true Rifts. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;624075The Rifts that can be perceived is not the true Rifts. :D

Hehe, yep.

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.

Quote from: Touhoufriend;624167I 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.

Good post.  Also, since we are dealing a bit with the concept of RAW here, a whole lot of rulesets specifically allow for GM interpretation, so the GM coming up with a rule or interpretation is RAW.

Rules that control social behavior have no place in an RPG.  If you can't get along with the people you're playing with, just leave.

"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.

Do people out there actually play with GMs they know are incompatible with their playstyle.  Is any particular convention event that fucking important that you can't just walk away?  You need protection in the rules from a GM playing dictator?

There's only one social rule that matters, don't be a dick, and it's always been handled the same way for thousands of years, foot or hand.  Don't need a book to make us all play nice.

Quote from: Votan;623985I think you may misunderstand the reason that this type of system arose.  It came about because of sponsored play (e.g. Living Greyhawk) where it was needed to make it possible to shift between tables and have the same rules apply.  It was open to anyone so the informal enforcement that I see with FlailSnails (i.e. don't misbehave) don't really work.

I don't get the comparison; or rather, I don't see why one would have to be so grossly formalized as compared to the other.  You can have sponsored play and shared worlds and campaign-hopping without "consistent rules".  What you can't have is competitive play, where one player or team "does better" than the others, because there's the expectation of consistency as being equivalent to fairness.  I have no expectations that two DM's campaigns will all use the same rules, requirements, house rules, etc, because I don't give a shit about 'player ranking' or whatever else is woven into some of those 'sponsored play' experiences you're talking about.

Point being, FLAILSNAILS is "open to anyone".  There's no membership card to buy to play in a game or start your own.  That's the RPGA you're thinking of.

Quote from: soviet;624164What 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?

Where are these "lot of the people who prefer this style of play are GMs" at? Because what you claim does not seem to appear very often in Real Life.

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.

And this is just a strawman arguement.

Quote from: Blackhand;624178Well spoken.

For a strawman, yes.

I don't see anything wrong with Soviet's point of view. I use random tables and roll in the open for those very reasons. The difference, which is a function of the system, is a matter of degree not kind.


I think there are some crazy mental gymnastics going on in here in order to make an unpopular poster wrong.

Quote from: jeff37923;624220Where are these "lot of the people who prefer this style of play are GMs" at? Because what you claim does not seem to appear very often in Real Life.

Who do you think GMs these games when they are played?

Quote from: Benoist;624124"show us where the bad GM you".

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

 "Show us where the bad GM touched you".

> "Show us where the bad GM touched you."



> "Show us where the bad GM touched you."

This is nice.

Quote from: soviet;624227Who do you think GMs these games when they are played?

Mental patients from the sound of it.

All kidding aside, you are making the incorrect assumption that GMs do not and cannot have the capability of making sound judgement calls in adjucating rules or handling the unexpected actions that are not covered by rules. That they cannot improvise without it becomming a "magical tea party". Have more faith in your fellow man.

Quote from: Gib;624221I use random tables and roll in the open for those very reasons.

Definitely. Last year I ran me some AD&D 2 using DMG 1 and all those random tables definitely made things a lot more fun. So much so that I have created a couple of random NPC personality trait and monster special ability tables for my current fantasy storygame campaign and a whole bunch more for the science fiction storygame supplement I am writing. Random tables are cool.

Quote from: jeff37923;624230Mental patients from the sound of it.

All kidding aside, you are making the incorrect assumption that GMs do not and cannot have the capability of making sound judgement calls in adjucating rules or handling the unexpected actions that are not covered by rules. That they cannot improvise without it becomming a "magical tea party". Have more faith in your fellow man.

I'm not assuming any of those things. I'm saying that giving a lot of power to one person - no matter how awesome they are, no matter how judiciously they use it - has an effect on the kind of game that results. Some play experiences work better if no-one has this level of power at all. (And some play experiences work better with it, sure).

Quote from: jeff37923;624230Mental patients from the sound of it.

All kidding aside, you are making the incorrect assumption that GMs do not and cannot have the capability of making sound judgement calls in adjucating rules or handling the unexpected actions that are not covered by rules. That they cannot improvise without it becomming a "magical tea party". Have more faith in your fellow man.

.yeah, or do any research on the first decade of the hobby (sheesh)

Quote from: estar;624176You 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.

Dude we're GMs on the internet, of course all of our games are fantastic and all of our players think we're awesome. ;)

I agree with most of what you say. I just personally find that when I GM, sticking to the rules makes things more fun for me by adding suspense to dice rolls and creating more unexpected detours.  

If one person has the power to veto surprises, by definition there will be fewer surprises happening. Unless they never use that power, in which case what's the point of having it?

Quote from: soviet;624233I'm not assuming any of those things. I'm saying that giving a lot of power to one person - no matter how awesome they are, no matter how judiciously they use it - has an effect on the kind of game that results. Some play experiences work better if no-one has this level of power at all. (And some play experiences work better with it, sure).

So tell us what play experiences work better when everyone has an equal amount of power, because I bet that they are not tabletop RPGs.

Quote from: Gib;624229This is nice.

It might not be worded nice, but if you read the actual arguments that lead there, you'll see that's what the "rules as the final arbiters of the going-ons at the game table" come down to: a belief that rules can fix people, and that bad GMs ought to be cornered into not sucking by the rules themselves, and a general lack of trust for the other participants in the game which will "break the game", make "arbitrary rulings," will ipso facto "never be consistent", and the like. It's a symptom of a lack of trust in human beings to collaborate in a game of their imaginations and actually play together in a rational manner, for the benefit of all, and not just themselves, basically.

No, it is comparing bad gming to child molestation, multiple times- and then putting those words into someone else's mouth.  I would think someone of your religious background would approach such things with a bit more circumspection.

Quote from: Gib;624243No, it is comparing bad gming to child molestation, multiple times- and then putting those words into someone else's mouth.  I would think someone of your religious background would approach such things with s bit more circumspection.

Well, its a joke that made me laugh the first time I heard it, and it does reflect a commonly-encountered attitude displayed by a large portion of the gamers one might encounter online. I think you may be taking it a bit too seriously.

Quote from: Gib;624243No, it is comparing bad gming to child molestation

That's politically correct bullshit, and you know it. I am NOT comparing it to real life child molestation. You have no fucking idea who you are talking about, and how actual child molestation relates to my experiences, my work, or my religion for that matter, Gib, so kindly go fuck yourself.

Quote from: jeff37923;624238So tell us what play experiences work better when everyone has an equal amount of power, because I bet that they are not tabletop RPGs.

I didn't say that everyone should have an equal amount of power. Just that it should be less unequal. Even without the ability to fudge the rules, the GM in just about every game still has a big role to play in shaping the game by setting target numbers, framing conflicts, running NPCs, etc.

The kinds of games that benefit from this are a) ones that focus on challenge and tactics, where the rules are supposed to be a neutral and impassibe arbiter of what happens, and b) ones that try to give players a more equal role in driving the story forward.

Quote from: soviet;624250The kinds of games that benefit from this are a) ones that focus on challenge and tactics, where the rules are supposed to be a neutral and impassibe arbiter of what happens, and b) ones that try to give players a more equal role in driving the story forward.

and c) games that are all about player creativity and imagination.

Quote from: Benoist;624247You have no fucking idea who you are talking about, and how actual child molestation relates to my experiences, my work, or my religion for that matter.

Right back at you, genius.
Hiding behind "PC bullshit" how unexpected.

Quote from: Benoist;624239It might not be worded nice, but if you read the actual arguments that lead there, you'll see that's what the "rules as the final arbiters of the going-ons at the game table" come down to: a belief that rules can fix people, and that bad GMs ought to be cornered into not sucking by the rules themselves, and a general lack of trust for the other participants in the game which will "break the game", make "arbitrary rulings," will ipso facto "never be consistent", and the like. It's a symptom of a lack of trust in human beings to collaborate in a game of their imaginations and actually play together in a rational manner, for the benefit of all, and not just themselves, basically.

Nah.

Quote from: soviet;624236If one person has the power to veto surprises, by definition there will be fewer surprises happening. Unless they never use that power, in which case what's the point of having it?

What about situations when that undefined surprise results in a Total Party Kill?

I was running a d20 Traveller game and in the first hour of play, due to a fluke die roll, the Players had their ship destroyed in a misjump. Surprise! Now as GM, I decided that the ship was not destroyed, but misjumped into another subsector and the Players had to find their way back. I used my veto power to remove the Surprise! and ameliorate the dice roll result into a Surprise! that was not a Total Party Kill in the first hour of the game.

Judgement is the key distinction here.

What you are advocating would have resulted in the Players getting their PCs killed in the first hour of gaming. What then? Roll up new ones? Why should they when their first PCs were snuffed out so unceremoneously?

Benoist, do you think that players should also have the right to break or ignore the rules of the game at will? I mean, you trust the people you play with, right?

Most of this conversation has, of course, missed the point.

Namely, that adjusting a game to you and your group's preferences used to be a given, but with more tightly focused games, it's more "my way or the highway" - my way, being the designers way.

I bet most of the people on this board have one or two games they are more comfortable DMing than others. The game just fits what you want out of a game and your group responds better to it.

Yes, that even means house-ruling, which, i feel, is the root of the discussion.

People are aware that house-ruling doesn't necessarily mean wholesale changes, right?

Quite often, it's just filling a gap in the rule-set that you and your group find enjoyable.

I trust no rule-set, because i know that it won't survive contact with me and my group.

Quote from: soviet;624250The kinds of games that benefit from this are a) ones that focus on challenge and tactics, where the rules are supposed to be a neutral and impassibe arbiter of what happens, and b) ones that try to give players a more equal role in driving the story forward.

So war/board games, and storygames.  Got it.

To me the whole point of the rpg is to occupy the middle ground between these.

Quote from: soviet;624255Benoist, do you think that players should also have the right to break or ignore the rules of the game at will? I mean, you trust the people you play with, right?

As long as the players are only making choices from their character's PoV, then they don't even need to know the rules and it would be impossible to break them, as rules should cover the outcome of events, which has nothing to do with players.

Quote from: Gib;624252Right back at you, genius.
Hiding behind "PC bullshit" how unexpected.

Going about your own private feud bitching across several threads on various proxy issues because I dared to disagree with you about something AD&D related ages ago that made you blow a fuse and ragequit the forum, how unexpected. And it is, unexpected, really. I must really have pissed you off back then.

Quote from: Benoist;624261Going about your own private feud bitching across several threads on various proxy issues because I dared to disagree with you about something AD&D related ages ago

I...feel like I've actually said this to you before, Benoist.  WEIRD.

Quote from: jeff37923;624254What about situations when that undefined surprise results in a Total Party Kill?

I was running a d20 Traveller game and in the first hour of play, due to a fluke die roll, the Players had their ship destroyed in a misjump. Surprise! Now as GM, I decided that the ship was not destroyed, but misjumped into another subsector and the Players had to find their way back. I used my veto power to remove the Surprise! and ameliorate the dice roll result into a Surprise! that was not a Total Party Kill in the first hour of the game.

Judgement is the key distinction here.

What you are advocating would have resulted in the Players getting their PCs killed in the first hour of gaming. What then? Roll up new ones? Why should they when their first PCs were snuffed out so unceremoneously?

Absolutely there are some play styles where this kind of fudging is a good thing. I'm just saying that there are some playstyles where it's bad. But that in itself is contingent on choosing the right system. If I'm playing a challenge-focused game I would choose my system carefully based on the level of risk to the PCs I wanted to have. Last time I ran this kind of game I used AD&D 2, rolling everything in the open with target numbers etc said out loud, and it was great fun. We had loads of near TPKs, including a memorable one with a carrion crawler that took down every PC bar one before getting shot down at the last minute. if that last PC had lost initiative, missed, or not rolled enough damage with his arrow, it would have been a TPK. It really was an awesome session.

Next time I run this kind of game I'm thinking of using Rolemaster. But maybe I'd better throw in a few NPC henchmen as well, just so we have a few more spare bodies knocking round when things get messy. :-)

By the same token, when I want to play a storygame style approach, I choose a system where PC death cannot happen randomly such as Other Worlds. Normally the stakes of failure are things like NPCs getting killed, cities being overrun, special items being broken, and things like that. Having said that, last night we did put a character's life on the line and he only made it by about 5 points on a d100 roll. But we did that consciously because the situation was important enough that the PC dying as a result would have been an appropriate consequence.

Quote from: soviet;624250I didn't say that everyone should have an equal amount of power. Just that it should be less unequal. Even without the ability to fudge the rules, the GM in just about every game still has a big role to play in shaping the game by setting target numbers, framing conflicts, running NPCs, etc.

Instead of crafting rules to ensure that the GM is acting fairly, why not just create ways to train or teach or advise people to become better GMs?

Quote from: soviet;624250The kinds of games that benefit from this are a) ones that focus on challenge and tactics, where the rules are supposed to be a neutral and impassibe arbiter of what happens, and b) ones that try to give players a more equal role in driving the story forward.

I think you need to look up what the word "arbiter" means.

So what happens when the Players do something that is not in the rules?

How does having a GM remove Player ability to have a "more equal role in driving the story forward"?

Quote from: misterguignol;624262I...feel like I've actually said this to you before, Benoist.  WEIRD.

Yeah. I know. Isn't it? And I have my own private band of haters too. They'll be in shortly, I'm sure. It's kinda like vultures, really.

Quote from: soviet;624255Benoist, do you think that players should also have the right to break or ignore the rules of the game at will?

Is this in regard to tabletop rpg games, or games in general?

Quote from: jeff37923;624264Instead of crafting rules to ensure that the GM is acting fairly, why not just create ways to train or teach or advise people to become better GMs?

It's not about whether the GM is fair or not. It's about whether one person has veto power over the game or not. How well they use that power is only part of the story.

Quote from: jeff37923;624264So what happens when the Players do something that is not in the rules?

The GM talks to the player and they make up something that sounds like fun.

Quote from: jeff37923;624264How does having a GM remove Player ability to have a "more equal role in driving the story forward"?

If one person has a veto over what happens and another person doesn't, the person that doesn't have a veto has a less equal role than the one that does.

Quote from: soviet;624263Absolutely there are some play styles where this kind of fudging is a good thing. I'm just saying that there are some playstyles where it's bad. But that in itself is contingent on choosing the right system. If I'm playing a challenge-focused game I would choose my system carefully based on the level of risk to the PCs I wanted to have. Last time I ran this kind of game I used AD&D 2, rolling everything in the open with target numbers etc said out loud, and it was great fun. We had loads of near TPKs, including a memorable one with a carrion crawler that took down every PC bar one before getting shot down at the last minute. if that last PC had lost initiative, missed, or not rolled enough damage with his arrow, it would have been a TPK. It really was an awesome session.

Next time I run this kind of game I'm thinking of using Rolemaster. But maybe I'd better throw in a few NPC henchmen as well, just so we have a few more spare bodies knocking round when things get messy. :-)

I think you are missing my point because a prolonged combat is different than a single die roll. Your comparative example would only make sense if a single die roll would resolve the entire combat and if failed, result in a Total Party Kill.

Quote from: soviet;624263By the same token, when I want to play a storygame style approach, I choose a system where PC death cannot happen randomly such as Other Worlds. Normally the stakes of failure are things like NPCs getting killed, cities being overrun, special items being broken, and things like that. Having said that, last night we did put a character's life on the line and he only made it by about 5 points on a d100 roll. But we did that consciously because the situation was important enough that the PC dying as a result would have been an appropriate consequence.

So you as GM used an abitrary die roll to take away the Player's capability to use his PC to engage in heroic self-sacrifice? Is this not what you have been warning others against happenning?

Quote from: soviet;624270It's not about whether the GM is fair or not. It's about whether one person has veto power over the game or not. How well they use that power is only part of the story.

But a very very important part, wouldn't you agree?

Quote from: soviet;624270The GM talks to the player and they make up something that sounds like fun.

Sounds like fun or sounds like an appropriate resolution for that particular situation? Can't a GM come up with one on their own?

Quote from: soviet;624270If one person has a veto over what happens and another person doesn't, the person that doesn't have a veto has a less equal role than the one that does.

A less equal role or just a less equal veto?

Quote from: jeff37923;624275So you as GM used an abitrary die roll to take away the Player's capability to use his PC to engage in heroic self-sacrifice? Is this not what you have been warning others against happenning?

Sorry, I don't see how you got that from what I said. No, that isn't what happened.

Quote from: soviet;624277Sorry, I don't see how you got that from what I said. No, that isn't what happened.

If the Player uses his character to engage in heroic self-sacrifice and die to achieve a result, then while the PC dies the Player has won in directing the story. Correct?

Now what about the rest of my post above.

The referee's power was an essential consequence of the limited-information nature of the D&D game, quite apart from any highbrow concept of "role-playing."

The challenge of the game depended on the game master knowing things to which the players were not privy.

On the other hand, if one wants a game in which players unabashedly take on authorial roles, then such limits may be irrelevant, or even contrary, to the object.

Quote from: jeff37923;624283If the Player uses his character to engage in heroic self-sacrifice and die to achieve a result, then while the PC dies the Player has won in directing the story. Correct?

Eh?

Quote from: jeff37923;624283Now what about the rest of my post above.

Eh? Oh, I see, you edited some more questions in after I'd started my reply.

1) I agree it's an important part, but it's not the only important part.

2) Sure, I guess, although I prefer to get input from the group as well.

3) i don't see the distinction.

Quote from: jeff37923;624254What about situations when that undefined surprise results in a Total Party Kill?

I was running a d20 Traveller game and in the first hour of play, due to a fluke die roll, the Players had their ship destroyed in a misjump. Surprise! Now as GM, I decided that the ship was not destroyed, but misjumped into another subsector and the Players had to find their way back. I used my veto power to remove the Surprise! and ameliorate the dice roll result into a Surprise! that was not a Total Party Kill in the first hour of the game.

Judgement is the key distinction here.

What you are advocating would have resulted in the Players getting their PCs killed in the first hour of gaming. What then? Roll up new ones? Why should they when their first PCs were snuffed out so unceremoneously?

I think that not to 'fudge' like that is probably not what most of the "rulesbooks chaining bad GMs to protect us players" crowd would advocate.

Some no doubt are keen on playing the regulated odds and letting the dice fall as they may. Heck, they might even get a bigger thrill out of a massively multi-player (and often player-versus-player) campaign like 1970s Blackmoor and Greyhawk, than from the more GM-driven type that prevails today.

Those are probably in the minority, though.

Quote from: soviet;624286Eh?

Since a storygame is concentrating on the story, the Players will be in conflict over who will be the primary author of that story since even collaborative works must have an editor or leader. While in a tabletop RPG the concentration is on the Player Characters, so the Players will be in conflict with what their PCs are in conflict with and thus the experience is one more directly tied to that POV.

In the example you gave, a Player of yours tried to direct the story by having his character die and you instead arbitrarily decided that it would be only a chance of death, thus diminishing his ability to change the story in the storygame. You exercised the same veto power that you say is wielded too heavily by bad GMs.

Quote from: soviet;624286Eh? Oh, I see, you edited some more questions in after I'd started my reply.

I thought they were appopriate.

Quote from: soviet;6242863) i don't see the distinction.

If all a person has is veto power, than that is the only role for that person. However, there is more to the roles that Players and GMs have in a tabletop RPG than just mere veto power.

Quote from: Phillip;624287I think that not to 'fudge' like that is probably not what most of the "rulesbooks chaining bad GMs to protect us players" crowd would advocate.

Possibly. But the converse is also true that the more freedom that a GM has, the better that GM may run a tabletop RPG. It all depends on the individual GM.

Quote from: Phillip;624287Some no doubt are keen on playing the regulated odds and letting the dice fall as they may. Heck, they might even get a bigger thrill out of a massively multi-player (and often player-versus-player) campaign like 1970s Blackmoor and Greyhawk, than from the more GM-driven type that prevails today.

Those are probably in the minority, though.

I dunno about that. :)

One of the most entertaining sessions I ever played in was the result of two seperate PC groups in the same campaign area meeting up and battling it out.

Quote from: jeff37923;624290Since a storygame is concentrating on the story, the Players will be in conflict over who will be the primary author of that story since even collaborative works must have an editor or leader. While in a tabletop RPG the concentration is on the Player Characters, so the Players will be in conflict with what their PCs are in conflict with and thus the experience is one more directly tied to that POV.

I'm not sure what any of this is based on, doesn't sound right to me.

Quote from: jeff37923;624290In the example you gave, a Player of yours tried to direct the story by having his character die and you instead arbitrarily decided that it would be only a chance of death, thus diminishing his ability to change the story in the storygame. You exercised the same veto power that you say is wielded too heavily by bad GMs.

No, again I'm not sure where you got all this from. The character tried something very difficult and very dangerous that would also have had significant knock-on effects on the rest of the game if it worked. Due to this we agreed that the failure stakes would be that if he failed the reroll his character would die. The player fully agreed that this should be the case and had every opportunity to back out or renegotiate. Instead he went for it. He rolled the dice and was successful. If he had failed, he would have died. I didn't veto anything.

Quote from: jeff37923;624293P
I dunno about that. :)

One of the most entertaining sessions I ever played in was the result of two seperate PC groups in the same campaign area meeting up and battling it out.

Do you understand that what I was saying was:

(a) Maybe some advocates of the view you oppose would enjoy (for instance) letting a misjump roll dictate a "TPK" in a context like that for which such rules were originally designed, but...

(b) those are probably a minority among the advocates of that view?

Quote from: soviet;624298No, again I'm not sure where you got all this from. The character tried something very difficult and very dangerous that would also have had significant knock-on effects on the rest of the game if it worked. Due to this we agreed that the failure stakes would be that if he failed the reroll his character would die. The player fully agreed that this should be the case and had every opportunity to back out or renegotiate. Instead he went for it. He rolled the dice and was successful. If he had failed, he would have died. I didn't veto anything.

Effects on the game or effects on the story? Isn't the purpose of a storygame to create a story? So what you and the Player were doing was negotiating the plot of the story.

Quote from: Phillip;624301Do you understand that what I was saying was:

(a) Maybe some advocates of the view you oppose would enjoy (for instance) letting a misjump roll dictate a "TPK" in a context like that for which such rules were originally designed, but...

(b) those are probably a minority among the advocates of that view?

No, I did not understand that. Now I do. The concept seems counter-intuitive because with PCs dead through an arbitrary die roll at the start of a game session, it would seem to suck the fun right out of a game. Indeed, they would be a minority.

Quote from: soviet;624270If one person has a veto over what happens and another person doesn't, the person that doesn't have a veto has a less equal role than the one that does.

Technically the DM isn't the only one with "veto" power.

In principle, a player (or several players) can "veto" the DM by just getting up and walking away from the game, and not coming back.

If the premises the game is being played at is not the personal residence of the DM, then the DM can be "vetoed" by being thrown out of the premises by the owner/renter of the premises.

Quote from: jeff37923;624304No, I did not understand that. Now I do. The concept seems counter-intuitive because with PCs dead through an arbitrary die roll at the start of a game session, it would seem to suck the fun right out of a game. Indeed, they would be a minority.

I would have let the dice fall where they may.

Why play with rules that have a chance of a total party kill if that isn't what you want?

Quote from: soviet;624298I'm not sure what any of this is based on, doesn't sound right to me....

... we agreed that the failure stakes would be that if he failed the reroll his character would die.

Such negotiation between GM and player is usually not role-playing per se (the exceptions being when a PC is actually negotiating with an NPC).

The way such discussion is treated in some games -- which may or may not correspond to what you were doing -- might be more notably intrusive from a role-playing-centric perspective than more common "table talk."

Whether it is really motivated by desire to tell a story, or by something more like the desire for role-conflation among wargamers that I mentioned earlier, or perhaps by something else again, is a conclusion to which one might wisely hesitate to leap on scant information.

Quote from: ggroy;624306Technically the DM isn't the only one with "veto" power.

In principle, a player (or several players) can "veto" the DM by just getting up and walking away from the game, and not coming back.

If the premises the game is being played at is not the personal residence of the DM, then the DM can be "vetoed" by being thrown out of the premises by the owner/renter of the premises.

What does this have to do with anything?

By the same token, if I get run over on the way to a session I won't be rolling any dice, therefore system doesn't matter.

Quote from: soviet;624310What does this have to do with anything?

These methods have been used to "veto" the DM in several D&D games I played in previously.

Quote from: Phillip;624309Such negotiation between GM and player is usually not role-playing per se (the exceptions being when a PC is actually negotiating with an NPC).

The way such discussion is treated in some games -- which may or may not correspond to what you were doing -- is pretty notably intrusive from a role-playing-centric perspective.

I accept that for some people it's intrusive. For me and my group it isn't. And in any event such activities are a small part of the general thrust of play, just like moving figures and planning rules-based strategies is a small part of the general thrust of something like 3e.

Quote from: jeff37923;624302Effects on the game or effects on the story? Isn't the purpose of a storygame to create a story? So what you and the Player were doing was negotiating the plot of the story.

I guess. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Quote from: soviet;624307I would have let the dice fall where they may.

Why play with rules that have a chance of a total party kill if that isn't what you want?

I bet you wouldn't have Players for long....

Quote from: soviet;624314I guess. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

The POV changes the game play experience. If you are role-playing a character it is different from authoring a story.

Quote from: jeff37923;624316I bet you wouldn't have Players for long....

Again, why are you (and they) playing a system that doesn't do what you want it to?

If I'm playing a system that kills PCs it's because me and the rest of my group want there to be a chance of PCs dying.

Quote from: jeff37923;624316I bet you wouldn't have Players for long...

Just long enough to make Dungeons & Dragons and Traveller the premier brands in their fields, eh?

I seem to remember that one of the litanies of the RPG site is that if you can't have a TPK against the will of the players, it isn't an RPG?

Note that a misjump starts out impossible (13+ on 2d6), and one that destroys a ship requires a modified roll of 16+.

How do you get the +4 or more necessary to make the "instant TPK" possible? By jumping when too close to a planet. Barring something quite unusual that the GM has chosen to introduce, that is a matter of player choice.

Quote from: Phillip;624327Note that a misjump starts out impossible (13+ on 2d6), and one that destroys a ship requires a modified roll of 16+.

How do you get the +4 or more necessary to make the "instant TPK" possible? By jumping when too close to a planet. Barring something quite unusual that the GM has chosen to introduce, that is a matter of player choice.

You 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.

Quote from: soviet;624317Again, why are you (and they) playing a system that doesn't do what you want it to?

Because my sound judgement as a GM allows me to veto stupid shit that would be a campaign killer.

Quote from: soviet;624317If I'm playing a system that kills PCs it's because me and the rest of my group want there to be a chance of PCs dying.

Quote from: Phillip;624320Just long enough to make Dungeons & Dragons and Traveller the premier brands in their fields, eh?

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.

Quote from: jeff37923;624333That is where the judgement and improvisation ability of a good GM come in.

No, this is where not playing shit systems comes in.

Quote from: soviet;624334No, this is where not playing shit systems comes in.

So, 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?

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.

Quote from: jeff37923;624409I'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

I agree. I'm talking about during play.

Quote from: TristramEvans;624181Your games must be fantastically uncreative... or your masturbation extremely boring.

wrong on both counts! TOUCHE!

Quote from: VectorSigma;624218I don't get the comparison; or rather, I don't see why one would have to be so grossly formalized as compared to the other.  You can have sponsored play and shared worlds and campaign-hopping without "consistent rules".  What you can't have is competitive play, where one player or team "does better" than the others, because there's the expectation of consistency as being equivalent to fairness.  I have no expectations that two DM's campaigns will all use the same rules, requirements, house rules, etc, because I don't give a shit about 'player ranking' or whatever else is woven into some of those 'sponsored play' experiences you're talking about.

Point being, FLAILSNAILS is "open to anyone".  There's no membership card to buy to play in a game or start your own.  That's the RPGA you're thinking of.

Yes, I was thinking RPGA, and tournament play.

I am intrigued that Flailsnails manages to be so flexible.

In general, competitive play is a very different experience I find than a game centred around an ongoing campaign. I don't dislike such games, at all. Paranoia is great fun. I adore Agon. But I consider such games peripheral to "True RPGs", whatever that means. They're completely gamist, with role-playing being a secondary consideration. Kind of like the Powerpuff Girls boardgame.

Quote from: Votan;624558Yes, I was thinking RPGA, and tournament play.

I am intrigued that Flailsnails manages to be so flexible.

Just for interest's sake, here's brief mention of a Flailsnails experiment where they just went "what the hell" and everyone played characters from entirely different editions.

http://jrients.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/todays-experiment.html

Well, this thread has certainly gotten some interesting response.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;624565Just for interest's sake, here's brief mention of a Flailsnails experiment where they just went "what the hell" and everyone played characters from entirely different editions.

http://jrients.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/todays-experiment.html

That was pretty awesome.  

Numbers inflation has been a problem for a while, but I have always suspected that you could make a lot of things work in a cooperative environment for character building.  GURPS nearly requires it, and I have successfully done a campaign with it.

So RPGPundit, are you telling me that a good set of rules and procedures cannot help a GM build and maintain personal confidence, game-management and group-management skills, just so we're clear?

Quote from: Novastar;624056I tend to look at rules as tools.

I can give someone a great hammer, and they can still be a shitty carpenter.

Conversely, even a great carpenter will get frustrated with shoddy tools.

And while I can use a hammer to get a screw in, it's better for me to use a screwdriver, since it's built for the job.

That's better than what I was going to say, which was "That's better than what I was going to say".

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

Or like writing a book, or making a movie, or acting in a play, or those RPGs which aren't RPGs.

ALL analogies are inexact, but in this case the parallels with Jazz exist, as you are taking someone's creative input, interpreting it through a set of rules, and then returning it.

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.

Man WHAT?!?

The rules are there specifically to help the GM make things up which make sense in the game. That's the point. They're a creative restraint designed to help inspire and resolve things in a way that fits a specific premise and tone. And if the GM isn't making things up, then where are all the villages and castles and orcs and dragons and black holes and... stuff an RPG consists of? Does it all have to exist in a written notebook somewhere before play? Cause that's nuts.

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..

...the game will massively SUCK!

But luckily RPGs don't DO that. An RPG system is supposed to give you the tools to break consensus and push comfort zones while still providing a safe creative environment.

Quote from: Benoist;624165No, 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.

If your intent is to roleplay the world, then that IS a creative agenda.

Quote from: jeff37923;624264Instead of crafting rules to ensure that the GM is acting fairly, why not just create ways to train or teach or advise people to become better GMs?

These should, and can easily, be the same thing.

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?

If by "bad results for players" you mean "total party kill from a single roll", then yes, shit system. And being a champion of "let the dice fall where they may" myself I find avoiding shit systems to be extremely important, because that allows me to rely on that philosophy.

Quote from: Looter Guy;624415wrong on both counts! TOUCHE!

As implied by your fantastically creative and masturbatory response.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625026So RPGPundit, are you telling me that a good set of rules and procedures cannot help a GM build and maintain personal confidence, game-management and group-management skills, just so we're clear?

A set of rules? No. They can perhaps damage a nascent GM's confidence, or get in his way in other forms, but rules in and of themselves cannot make a GM a better GM.

A set of really really good GM advice (note that most RPG books that have GM advice do not have really good GM advice) can possibly help make a GM better at GMing and developing these skills.  For example, I think every GM would be helped tremendously by reading Erick Wujcik's vast and instructive advice in the Amber RPG books.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;625196A set of rules? No. They can perhaps damage a nascent GM's confidence, or get in his way in other forms, but rules in and of themselves cannot make a GM a better GM.

A set of really really good GM advice

See, as a book learner myself this would make GMing unique from every other book definable skillset. And while practice is still necessary, without a good set of procedures what you're practicing may be the wrong thing and establish bad habits which actually make you less effective, and your confidence can be undermined when you're not sure if you're doing it right.

Granted there's a jumping off point where one can transcend the rules, but that's not the same as ignoring them, as doing that still requires the framework it came from. Great artists break rules all the time, but the greatest of them understand why.

And rules, advice, suggestions...it doesn't matter what you call them. They're all the same, and the only thing that matters is if they're followed.

You grinding your "I hate story games" axe again, Pundit?

Crappy GMs are a perrenial blight upon this hobby. While players and GMs have the right to tinker, GMs can't hide behind their viking hats. These are games, games have rules, and often I've seen good rules sets trip up craps GMs who never even bothered to read the rules sets they promised to. This happened to me in Traveller, of all places, when an old gm I had wanted to arbitrarily change the charge rules. Another case was in Exalted, when a gm wanted to deny all Solar exalted use of perfect defenses. I walked in both cases, and each game collapsed a few sessions later.

Rules sets don't teach people how to gm, they're not supposed to. But GMs who refuse to read and learn rules sets and want to improvise like mad free form gamers are ones who I'm pretty sure suck. every time I've stuck around for gms who refuse to deal with players and negotiate in a reasonable manner has always turned into a massive clusterfuck of epic proportions where no one has fun and everyone walks away from the table pissed.

Bad gaming starts from a fundamental lack of respect of players and arbitrary demands of authority. This is not a trade vs story game thing. This is s not being a jerk thing.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;625455Rules sets don't teach people how to gm, they're not supposed to. But GMs who refuse to read and learn rules sets and want to improvise like mad free form gamers are ones who I'm pretty sure suck.

I've said this a lot.

It's not a popular opinion here.

I can only guess why.

A good GM should know how to run the system being played.

A great GM should be able to keep the game moving seamlessly when venturing into areas the rules don't cover.

A good system can be trusted to a point but is no substitute for common sense and good judgement. Otherwise the GM risks becoming like one of those idiots that drive into a river because thier GPS told them to.

Trust but verify.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625434And while practice is still necessary, without a good set of procedures what you're practicing may be the wrong thing and establish bad habits which actually make you less effective, and your confidence can be undermined when you're not sure if you're doing it right.

Absolutely true--but when you get a procedure that is
- opaque
- ambiguous
- biased
practice based on that procedure gives rise to bad results, undermining confidence.

I get the feeling that one side is saying "you must trust the rules!" while the other side says "no, we do not trust the rules."

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625434And rules, advice, suggestions...it doesn't matter what you call them. They're all the same, and the only thing that matters is if they're followed.

Rules != Advice
Rules matter and shape play because rules are a GM-imposed constraint on the players, with consequences. Advice is internalised knowledge that comes from opinions offered by a third party, based on experience. No consequences as a result of advice.

Also mentor is not the same as coach, book is not the same as teacher, self-belief is not the same as positive results (though it feels like that). They all have their place in learning and decision making, however.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;625455You grinding your "I hate story games" axe again, Pundit?

Crappy GMs are a perrenial blight upon this hobby. While players and GMs have the right to tinker, GMs can't hide behind their viking hats. These are games, games have rules, and often I've seen good rules sets trip up craps GMs who never even bothered to read the rules sets they promised to. This happened to me in Traveller, of all places, when an old gm I had wanted to arbitrarily change the charge rules. Another case was in Exalted, when a gm wanted to deny all Solar exalted use of perfect defenses. I walked in both cases, and each game collapsed a few sessions later.

Rules sets don't teach people how to gm, they're not supposed to. But GMs who refuse to read and learn rules sets and want to improvise like mad free form gamers are ones who I'm pretty sure suck. every time I've stuck around for gms who refuse to deal with players and negotiate in a reasonable manner has always turned into a massive clusterfuck of epic proportions where no one has fun and everyone walks away from the table pissed.

Bad gaming starts from a fundamental lack of respect of players and arbitrary demands of authority. This is not a trade vs story game thing. This is s not being a jerk thing.

Totally agree with you on the respect front, but it seems you've met a lot of bad GMs. Like, an order of magnitude more than I've met. It sounds like an epidemic.

On the other hand you say you have form for walking out on sessions where your favourite rules aren't applied to your satisfaction, because you feel some sort of promise has been broken or there's a lack of reasonable negotiation. There is a common denominator there...

Two questions:
1/ Isn't a slavish adherence to the rules another arbitrary demand of authority?
2/ How does one hide behind a Viking Hat? Isn't the point of the Viking Hat that players can see you and respect your autho-ro-tay?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;625463Otherwise the GM risks becoming like one of those idiots that drive into a river because thier GPS told them to.

That is the analogy I was looking for.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;625455Rules sets don't teach people how to gm, they're not supposed to. But GMs who refuse to read and learn rules sets and want to improvise like mad free form gamers are ones who I'm pretty sure suck.

My experience tells me the opposite. I want a GM more creative than the average game designer. Which hasn't been surprisingly hard to find, but perhaps I'm just lucky.OTH, there are a surprising number of RPG designers who don't seem to actually play or use the systems they sell, so there's that. Give me someone whose been GMing for 30 years with a house system over a highs chool student that knows 4th Edition inside and out anyday.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;625455Crappy GMs are a perrenial blight upon this hobby. While players and GMs have the right to tinker, GMs can't hide behind their viking hats. These are games, games have rules, and often I've seen good rules sets trip up craps GMs who never even bothered to read the rules sets they promised to. This happened to me in Traveller, of all places, when an old gm I had wanted to arbitrarily change the charge rules. Another case was in Exalted, when a gm wanted to deny all Solar exalted use of perfect defenses. I walked in both cases, and each game collapsed a few sessions later.

Rules sets don't teach people how to gm, they're not supposed to. But GMs who refuse to read and learn rules sets and want to improvise like mad free form gamers are ones who I'm pretty sure suck. every time I've stuck around for gms who refuse to deal with players and negotiate in a reasonable manner has always turned into a massive clusterfuck of epic proportions where no one has fun and everyone walks away from the table pissed.

Bad gaming starts from a fundamental lack of respect of players and arbitrary demands of authority. This is not a trade vs story game thing. This is s not being a jerk thing.

So, because you have had a couple of crappy GMs, you think that the hobby needs a fundamental change? What about all the GMs out there who are not crappy?

Quote from: Blackhand;625461I can only guess why.

They've told you why, but they attempted to make it sound like a virtue instead of the failure that it is.

Let me translated the OP and others into what they really are saying.


As GM I have unlimited power. I get to decide every decision made by an NPC, map every bit of the world, place every creature. Only the PCs are off limit to me, and truth to be told- that's only when, where and if I allow it.

I also pick the physics of the world (i.e. the rules being used). But I suck at picking and using rules. They don't do what I want them to. Yes, the rules must be to blame- it can't be I.

I won't learn to better use those rules, I will not improve those rules, I will not attempt to understand the abstractions of the rules, nor will I change to better rules. To do so would be to admit that I suck.

Therefore I'll override the rules whenever I wish, claim that doing so is being a great GM, and praise myself for such weakness while saying people who are doing things right are losers.


I cannot overstate the contempt I have for that mindset.

Quote from: gleichman;625594They've told you why, but they attempted to make it sound like a virtue instead of the failure that it is.

Let me translated the OP and others into what they really are saying.


As GM I have unlimited power. I get to decide every decision made by an NPC, map every bit of the world, place every creature. Only the PCs are off limit to me, and truth to be told- that's only when, where and if I allow it.

I also pick the physics of the world (i.e. the rules being used). But I suck at picking and using rules. They don't do what I want them to. Yes, the rules must be to blame- it can't be I.

I won't learn to better use those rules, I will not improve those rules, I will not attempt to understand the abstractions of the rules, nor will I change to better rules. To do so would be to admit that I suck.

Therefore I'll override the rules whenever I wish, claim that doing so is being a great GM, and praise myself for such weakness while saying people who are doing things right are losers.


I cannot overstate the contempt I have for that mindset.

Allthough I am a fan of clearly communicated and consistant houserules, I would share your contempt for gm's that change stuff randomly because they suck.  



Always remember that most bad gm's don't actually know they are bad.

Quote from: Bill;625599Allthough I am a fan of clearly communicated and consistant houserules, I would share your contempt for gm's that change stuff randomly because they suck.  

Always remember that most bad gm's don't actually know they are bad.

Nope.  Most of them come here and circle jerk each other, telling them that it's ok not to use the rules because hell, they are the only person they know in real life who has even read the rulebook.

Certainly not their players, because if more of the GM's here had rulebook toting, rule slinging players those players would be GM after throwing the old shitty GM off the boat.

Quote from: Blackhand;625621Nope.  Most of them come here and circle jerk each other, telling them that it's ok not to use the rules because hell, they are the only person they know in real life who has even read the rulebook.

Certainly not their players, because if more of the GM's here had rulebook toting, rule slinging players those players would be GM after throwing the old shitty GM off the boat.

Actually, such players are far more likely to stop gaming altogether, because while knowing the rules is important, it is the easiest part of being referee. Willingness to read the rule book and willingness to sit behind the screen are two different things.

Quote from: Gib;625626Actually, such players are far more likely to stop gaming altogether, because while knowing the rules is important, it is the easiest part of being referee. Willingness to read the rule book and willingness to sit behind the screen are two different things.

In my experience, they either find or become the DM they respect.

Quote from: Blackhand;625628In my experience, they either find or become the DM they respect.

In mine, the group usually fragments and drifts apart.

Quote from: Gib;625626Actually, such players are far more likely to stop gaming altogether, because while knowing the rules is important, it is the easiest part of being referee. Willingness to read the rule book and willingness to sit behind the screen are two different things.

Doesn't match my experience. Nearly everyone I know that took the time to learn most of the rules went on to run games, even if only now and then. I think there is a strong link between interest in rules, and in applying them to creations of your own.

Also it's clearly not the easiest part, most of the posters here can't manage it.

Quote from: gleichman;625632Doesn't match my experience. Nearly everyone I know that took the time to learn most of the rules went on to run games, even if only now and then. I think there is a strong link between interest in rules, and in applying them to creations of your own.

Also it's clearly not the easiest part, most of the posters here can't manage it.

It's the easiest part for me, anyway. Furthermore, I am less and less likely assume the significance and meaning of points derived from observing what 'most of the posters here'  can and cannot manage with each passing day.

Quote from: Gib;625642Furthermore, I am less and less likely assume the significance and meaning of points derived from observing what 'most of the posters here'  can and cannot manage with each passing day.

I wish this site wasn't so typical of the larger hobby myself, however everything from my observations of other forums to the current best selling games tells me that the members if this hobby are very much the same with rare exceptions.

But that's to be expected of people these days. A numbing sameness...

Quote from: gleichman;625594They've told you why, but they attempted to make it sound like a virtue instead of the failure that it is.

Let me translated the OP and others into what they really are saying.


As GM I have unlimited power. I get to decide every decision made by an NPC, map every bit of the world, place every creature. Only the PCs are off limit to me, and truth to be told- that's only when, where and if I allow it.

I also pick the physics of the world (i.e. the rules being used). But I suck at picking and using rules. They don't do what I want them to. Yes, the rules must be to blame- it can't be I.

I won't learn to better use those rules, I will not improve those rules, I will not attempt to understand the abstractions of the rules, nor will I change to better rules. To do so would be to admit that I suck.

Therefore I'll override the rules whenever I wish, claim that doing so is being a great GM, and praise myself for such weakness while saying people who are doing things right are losers.


I cannot overstate the contempt I have for that mindset.

You are complaining about the way people are running games that you will likely never see and interact with.  The very presence of contempt is an overstatement.

Quote from: gleichman;625594
As GM I have unlimited power. I get to decide every decision made by an NPC,

Who else?

Quote from: gleichman;625656I wish this site wasn't so typical of the larger hobby myself, however everything from my observations of other forums to the current best selling games tells me that the members if this hobby are very much the same with rare exceptions.

But that's to be expected of people these days. A numbing sameness...

It think it is more a function of equifinality, resulting from the seemingly near universal urge to engage in post ad hoc accommodative argument when one's perceived validity is threatened, more than anything else.

A staggering amount of time is burned online due to the inability of so many to say, "fuck you, I do (not) like it that way" and leave it at that. Instead, faux logic is deployed over and over again to defend stances that are largely emotional in nature.

Quote from: This Guy;625659You are complaining about the way people are running games that you will likely never see and interact with.  The very presence of contempt is an overstatement.

I've interacted with them here, and contempt is the perfect word for it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;625665Who else?

?

Perhaps you took the first paragraph wrong, it was a list of powers normally granted without much question (except for story gamers) to the GM. It's there to highlight how unnecessary the grab for power over the rules in play is.

I would game with both Gleichmann and Gib.

There are a few other posters here, like The Butcher, Dungeondelver and Bill.  I wish we could actually get some of us together at a hotel or something and then video tape it.

I know what you mean, though.  Most folks who bother to read rules manuals go on to run games.  That's just my experience, and YMMV.

Quote from: gleichman;625672?

Perhaps you took the first paragraph wrong, it was a list of powers normally granted without much question (except for story gamers) to the GM. It's there to highlight how unnecessary the grab for power over the rules in play is.

Ah, right. I thought it was part of your screed about the OP. It wasn't very clear.

At the end of the day, who gives a fuck? Play how you like with people you like and trust. It's my opinion that 90% of enjoyment comes from that alone. Sure, you might get the odd ruling or result you don't agree with, but you fucking talk about it after the session is done and reach an agreement you are all happy with.

That's being an adult - game rules have little to do with being an adult.

Quote from: One Horse Town;625675At the end of the day, who gives a fuck? Play how you like with people you like and trust. It's my opinion that 90% of enjoyment comes from that alone. Sure, you might get the odd ruling or result you don't agree with, but you fucking talk about it after the session is done and reach an agreement you are all happy with.

That's being an adult - game rules have little to do with being an adult.

Dude, you are and have always been my very favorite mod.

And that is no bullshit.

Quote from: One Horse Town;625675Ah, right. I thought it was part of your screed about the OP. It wasn't very clear.

At the end of the day, who gives a fuck? Play how you like with people you like and trust. It's my opinion that 90% of enjoyment comes from that alone. Sure, you might get the odd ruling or result you don't agree with, but you fucking talk about it after the session is done and reach an agreement you are all happy with.

That's being an adult - game rules have little to do with being an adult.

I've always maintained that rules/systems are AT MOST the fifth or sixth most important thing when it comes to having a good game.

Quote from: One Horse Town;625675That's being an adult - game rules have little to do with being an adult.

Sure they do, adults pick good rules that they don't have to add to or change on the fly.

Quote from: gleichman;625680Sure they do, adults pick good rules that they don't have to add to or change on the fly.

No Brian, adults pick games that suit their group - whether they have to add to rules or change on the fly or not.

Quote from: One Horse Town;625683No Brian, adults pick games that suit their group - whether they have to add to rules or change on the fly or not.

Here we disagree, children are those who can't understand or follow rules in my mind- or at least refuse to select rules they can understand and follow. It's the very definition of not being adult.

Quote from: gleichman;625686Here we disagree, children are those who can't understand or follow rules in my mind- or at least select rules they can understand and follow. It's the very definition of not being adult.

Sounds like the very definition of someone whose given up introspection and challenging assumptions in order to live a safe life as a tool of the system.

Quote from: gleichman;625671I've interacted with them here, and contempt is the perfect word for it.

No, the kind that matters.

Is it just me, or do both sides of this argument seem like either caricatures or strawmen rather than a discussion of actual play...

There is just so much excluded middle here...

Quote from: Emperor Norton;625723Is it just me, or do both sides of this argument seem like either caricatures or strawmen rather than a discussion of actual play...

There is just so much excluded middle here...

Yes, and yes.

I do find it funny Blackhand says he'd play with Gleichman, since Gleichman wouldn't play with ANY of us plebs, from what I've seen him post.
 
(even I, who pointed out his example several months ago to shame us with his impressive intellect, had errors and omissions; Gleichman's imperfect example; post #889 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=22844&highlight=novastar&page=18)
I'm not sure, but suspect Gleichman put me on his IL after post #899; I did nickname him "boo boo kitty fuck" (itself a reference to Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back!) in another thread...)

Quote from: gleichman;625686Here we disagree, children are those who can't understand or follow rules in my mind- or at least refuse to select rules they can understand and follow. It's the very definition of not being adult.

We're talking at cross-purposes i think.

Can't understand or follow rules is a different kettle of fish to 'don't like that rule, let's change it to fit our group - otherwise we're groovy with this game'

Quote from: One Horse Town;625768Can't understand or follow rules is a different kettle of fish to 'don't like that rule, let's change it to fit our group - otherwise we're groovy with this game'

Also a different kettle of fish is long considered house rules introduced before play- and "I don't like how this is going, let's change the laws of physics before we make that die roll".

One is an adult modifying something to better suit his needs. The other is a child who wants nothing but instant gratification.

I find the whole discussion odd...
largely becuase I usually run houserules that I largely make up as I go along.

If I know that a longsword does 1d8 its pretty easy to extrapolate that a church sized candlestick made of brass that weighs 10 kg will do .. 1d6+1 crushing ... So long at is always does that then it's as acurate as a rule written down by someone who had exactly the same thought process 14 years ago.

I want the rules to basically be a consistent physics engine. I believe that I am capable of doing that on the fly once I have selected a base mechanic. Therefore I don't need a book of rules just the basic mechanism and a brain.

The plus side is stuff is really quick to look up :) the downside is the players need to trust me.... I'm a pretty trustworthy guy but some people like to have a physical thing to check when the DM tells them that the total modifier for cover and dim light in this case is -8.

Now don't think that means I am always a rules light man. I added a skills system to Amber split the powers into partial trees etc etc ... but my skill system doesn't have any skills written down because you can have any skills you want in the history of time or space. I just need to know how skills work in a diceless system and opposed to PCs and NPCs.
I just think once you have the core mechanic and a feeling for genre you can extrapolate any situation.

Quote from: jibbajibba;625788I find the whole discussion odd...
largely becuase I usually run houserules that I largely make up as I go along.

If I know that a longsword does 1d8 its pretty easy to extrapolate that a church sized candlestick made of brass that weighs 10 kg will do .. 1d6+1 crushing ... So long at is always does that then it's as acurate as a rule written down by someone who had exactly the same thought process 14 years ago.

I want the rules to basically be a consistent physics engine. I believe that I am capable of doing that on the fly once I have selected a base mechanic. Therefore I don't need a book of rules just the basic mechanism and a brain.

The plus side is stuff is really quick to look up :) the downside is the players need to trust me.... I'm a pretty trustworthy guy but some people like to have a physical thing to check when the DM tells them that the total modifier for cover and dim light in this case is -8.

Now don't think that means I am always a rules light man. I added a skills system to Amber split the powers into partial trees etc etc ... but my skill system doesn't have any skills written down because you can have any skills you want in the history of time or space. I just need to know how skills work in a diceless system and opposed to PCs and NPCs.
I just think once you have the core mechanic and a feeling for genre you can extrapolate any situation.

Consistancy is important, and some people are just not good at it.

Quote from: Bill;625791Consistancy is important, and some people are just not good at it.

consistency isn't as important as context, something the GM can adapt to and no rules system can.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626032consistency isn't as important as context, something the GM can adapt to and no rules system can.

This is a null statement.  It doesn't mean anything.

Consistency creates and maintains context.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626032consistency isn't as important as context, something the GM can adapt to and no rules system can.

Context and Rules cover two different spheres, and except for the selection of the rules to use in the first place- have no overlap.

Unless the design is a poor one.

Quote from: gleichman;626036Context and Rules cover two different spheres, and except for the selection of the rules to use in the first place- have no overlap.

Unless the design is a poor one.

Thats a ridiculous assertion. Rules are ONLY ever used in context. they are either adapted to fit, or forced into it. But rules can't be used in isolation of context, except outside of the game (during chargen...but even then you have the context of the type of game the Gm is planning to run).The situation in the game is the context.

Quote from: Blackhand;626035This is a null statement.  It doesn't mean anything.

Meaning you simply don't understand it.

Rule: if a character wants to break through a door, they make a strength roll.

Context: the door is the rotted and worn entrance to a cell, long since unattended. It hangs off of its rusted hinges and has seen little use.

Context: the door is a solid stone boulder wedged by an ogre in the mouth of a cave.

Context: the door is a solid steel reinforced gate laden with runes of protection. It is barricaded from behind and takes three grown men to raise via a chain and pulley system.

Context: the door is a layer of ameobic slime, held in place by arcane magics. Only characters who wish the occupants no harm may pass through the slime, others are dissolved by powerful acids if they place even a limb into the goo.

Context: the door is a wyrmhole, portal to another dimesion, cunningly disguised by a glamour to resemble a kitchen cabinet.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626042Thats a ridiculous assertion.

No, you made the ridiculous assertion.

It's a simple three step process

1. Context invokes the rules (i.e. decides they will be used). It's influence then ends at the boundary of the called rules.

2. The rules resolve the event passed to them.

3. The result of the rule's action is then fed back into the system and new Context based upon the result is generated.

Easy, simple. Any attempt to cross context with rules will produce corruption- in effect destroying the meaning of both elements.

ADD: BTW, your examples to Blackhand are really stupid ones- most would not even invoke the rule you gave. Apples and Oranges.

Quote from: gleichman;626048No, you made the ridiculous assertion.

It's a simple three step process

1. Context invokes the rules (i.e. decides they will be used). It's influence then ends at the boundary of the called rules.

2. The rules resolve the event passed to them.

3. The result of the rule's action is then fed back into the system and new Context based upon the result is generated.

Easy, simple. Any attempt to cross context with rules will produce corruption- in effect destroying the meaning of both elements.

So why not just play a computer game, as thats essentially the handicap you're placing on your imaginations?

Allow me to posit the alternative:

Roleplaying creates the context. As the context calls for it, the GM may invoke a rule.

The GM tailors the rules to suit the context, or, if no rule fits the context well enough, simply makes a ruling.

This is the difference to me between an RPG and this:

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wg5AvfasLQI/TfuguMK9qbI/AAAAAAAAHFg/j1yEjMjy9Tw/s1600/computer69.jpg)

for the culturally vacant, thats a picture of The General, a computer learning program from the Prisoner. A question is asked of the computer, transcribed as a series of holes on a piece of paper, the paper is inserted in the computer, and the computer processes then spits out an answer.

More to the point, however, was the message behind that episode, which has to do with teh difference between learning and rote memorization. Victims of the SAT-based American public education system should be familiar with that one.

Quote from: gleichman;626048ADD: BTW, your examples to Blackhand are really stupid ones- most would not even invoke the rule you gave. Apples and Oranges.

They're stupid because you think they wouldn't invoke that rule? Please tell me what rule then they would invoke. And the benefits of a game having set rules for each of those circumstances, ratherthan a streamlined, simplified set of rules that an intelligent, reasoning GM can adapt to fit the situation.

And yes, ALL of those situations could invoke that rule as the D&D game is written, for those banal fellows who allow a "play by the book" mentality to make them the system's bitch, rather than the other way around.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626058So why not just play a computer game, as thats essentially the handicap you're placing on your imaginations?

A computer (today's at least) cannot provide a meaningful enough context to invoke the rules. Nor can it provide a meaningful enough context after the rules have been invoked.

For the actual combat itself, a computer game would indeed be acceptable if there was one that both used the rules I wanted, and allowed the full range of player options with those rules. But even then I like rolling me own dice.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626058Allow me to posit the alternative:

Not interested until you understand why your examples in a previous post were so poor.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626063They're stupid because you think they wouldn't invoke that rule? Please tell me what rule then they would invoke.

Very well, but I'll do so for Age of Heroes and my own campaign. I don't play D&D. I will do using only the quoted information as an input which is very incomplete...

QuoteContext: the door is the rotted and worn entrance to a cell, long since unattended. It hangs off of its rusted hinges and has seen little use.

Doesn't sound like it's a door or much of a barrier to me. No rule invoked at all under that context.

QuoteContext: the door is a solid stone boulder wedged by an ogre in the mouth of a cave.

Object isn't a door, it's a boulder. Weight isn't given, nor size. In Author mode I'd have to add that information. The rules on Effective Strength would be used to determine if it could be moved.

QuoteContext: the door is a solid steel reinforced gate laden with runes of protection. It is barricaded from behind and takes three grown men to raise via a chain and pulley system.

Again, missing key information for my system of choice. I would have to add it in Author mode determining hold strength, Armor value and durability as well as the effect of the protective runes.

The exact rules used to resolve it's opening or breach would from there be determined by the actions of the player as he would have a number of options.

QuoteContext: the door is a layer of ameobic slime, held in place by arcane magics. Only characters who wish the occupants no harm may pass through the slime, others are dissolved by powerful acids if they place even a limb into the goo.

Would never happen in my campaign as described. It isn't a door, so door opening rules would not be invoked under any conditions.

If the silly thing did exist, many other rules might be invoked depending upon how the players approached this construct.

QuoteContext: the door is a wyrmhole, portal to another dimesion, cunningly disguised by a glamour to resemble a kitchen cabinet.

Same deal as the slime, would never happen in my campaigns.

If it did, again it would invoke any number of rules depending upon how the players approached it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;626063And yes, ALL of those situations could invoke that rule as the D&D game is written

I don't think you understand at all how people play RAW, or you wouldn't make such a statement and be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

Quote from: gleichman;626080Not interested until you understand why your examples in a previous post were so poor.

You'd have to actually demonstrate they were poor first for a reason I'd find acceptable or at least logically consistent with what I said and the point I made.

Quote from: gleichman;626087I don't think you understand at all how people play RAW, or you wouldn't make such a statement and be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

I think you take RPGs WAY too seriously if you think ANY debate about RPG gamestyles with online strangers would have the slightest affect on my ability to look myself in the mirror.

You're answers were mostly nonsensical. Your system of choice is irrelevant, I presented the difference between a rule and context. Your answers ranged from "not enough info for blahblah system", some ridiculousness about "Author Mode" (we were discussing GMs roles in RPGs, not storygames right?), and then some "wouldn't happen in my campaign", which of course, isnt an answer, simply an avoidal. Overall, you missed or avoided the point, which wasnt to ask how you'd rule on such things in whatever system is your darling, but even if it was, you kind of failed miserably. And yes, a boulder can be a door (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/door).

Quote from: gleichman;626048No, you made the ridiculous assertion.

It's a simple three step process

1. Context invokes the rules (i.e. decides they will be used). It's influence then ends at the boundary of the called rules.

2. The rules resolve the event passed to them.

3. The result of the rule's action is then fed back into the system and new Context based upon the result is generated.

Easy, simple. Any attempt to cross context with rules will produce corruption- in effect destroying the meaning of both elements.

ADD: BTW, your examples to Blackhand are really stupid ones- most would not even invoke the rule you gave. Apples and Oranges.

Sperglords gonna sperg.

All in all, knowing a game system is important for a GM.  Knowing when to supplement, alter, disregard, or simply dispense with the system in play is important for a good GM - but it's a lot harder than the first part.  GMs who don't make the cut can simply frame this as "making shit up", MTP, etc., if it makes them feel better.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;626228All in all, knowing a game system is important for a GM.  Knowing when to supplement, alter, disregard, or simply dispense with the system in play is important for a good GM - but it's a lot harder than the first part.  GMs who don't make the cut can simply frame this as "making shit up", MTP, etc., if it makes them feel better.

Nicely put

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;625455You grinding your "I hate story games" axe again, Pundit?

Crappy GMs are a perrenial blight upon this hobby. While players and GMs have the right to tinker, GMs can't hide behind their viking hats. These are games, games have rules, and often I've seen good rules sets trip up craps GMs who never even bothered to read the rules sets they promised to. This happened to me in Traveller, of all places, when an old gm I had wanted to arbitrarily change the charge rules. Another case was in Exalted, when a gm wanted to deny all Solar exalted use of perfect defenses. I walked in both cases, and each game collapsed a few sessions later.

Rules sets don't teach people how to gm, they're not supposed to. But GMs who refuse to read and learn rules sets and want to improvise like mad free form gamers are ones who I'm pretty sure suck. every time I've stuck around for gms who refuse to deal with players and negotiate in a reasonable manner has always turned into a massive clusterfuck of epic proportions where no one has fun and everyone walks away from the table pissed.

Bad gaming starts from a fundamental lack of respect of players and arbitrary demands of authority. This is not a trade vs story game thing. This is s not being a jerk thing.

Well that's just fine but nobody here was saying that there aren't bad GMs or that you shouldn't be familiar with the rules of the game you're going to run.

Bad gming can also be from inexperience, cluelessness, and stupidity.

It is not always from a lack of respect or ego.