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 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...

-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).

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...

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).