Quote from: RedFoxStuart obviously wants to know everything the GM is doing is exactly according to his preference prior to play or he can't enjoy himself.

Yes, exactly according to MY OWN preference for playing games fairly! :evillaugh:

If you're playing in a game where the GM has decided not to follow the rules, is it ok for the player's to do the same?

You rolled an four 18's for your character?  Yup.
You rolled another natural 20, but picked the dice up before we could see it? Yup.
Are you sure you still have arrows left?  Yup, lots of arrows left.
Are you sure you memorized Feather Fall?  Yup.
Wow, just enough XP to hit the next level, huh?  Yup.
I thought that would leave you at 0 hp, are you sure you still have 5 left? Yup.
You actually bought Beladonna with your starting gold? Yup.

Those sorts of things are usually looked down on.  Thinking about some of the arguments in this thread, wouldn't they also apply to why it's ok for players to do the illusionist thing?

Quote from: StuartYes, exactly according to MY OWN preference for playing games fairly! :evillaugh:

Not everyone is interested in fairness parity between players and the GM.

So the other guy at the table doing all of those things is bad, but the GM doing whatever the hell is good -- even if there are other players at the table who think everyone is playing fairly?

Quote from: StuartSo the other guy at the table doing all of those things is bad, but the GM doing whatever the hell is good -- even if there are other players at the table who think everyone is playing fairly?

For some people, yes.  You've been roleplaying this long and this is coming as a surprise to you?

There is a saying that tends to be thrown about our table, whenever one of the players is getting a bit too out of hand and vindictive:  "It's not the players vs. the GM."

It's not a goddamn competition.  It's not a war, it's not a vendetta.  It's a co-operative experience.  The GM can't "cheat" because the GM is only there to make a fun game.  So long as the game is fun, it doesn't fucking matter.  

I have my own silly theory-esque catchphrase, which I will start using more often I think.  "Live in the Now."  Are you having fun, right now, in the game?  Then anything else, doesn't fucking matter.  Did you have fun, in that game?  Then anything else, doesn't fucking matter.  There is a rather wierd tendency among forum going gamers and theory gamers to try and talk themselves out of the enjoyment they just had.

Quote from: RedFoxFor some people, yes. You've been roleplaying this long and this is coming as a surprise to you?

It's not surprising that people might think that way, no.

However, I'm interested in ways to make RPGs better and things that might make them more appealing to people beyond the core of the hobby. I think this is a very important issue to reflect on...

On the Ron Edwards thing, narrativist is basically a term for what Ron Edwards likes.  If Ron suddenly acquired a taste for raiding dungeons, kicking in doors, killing orcs and taking their stuff he'd define that as narrativist.

Useless bloody term.

QuoteIt's not a goddamn competition. It's not a war, it's not a vendetta. It's a co-operative experience. The GM can't "cheat" because the GM is only there to make a fun game. So long as the game is fun, it doesn't fucking matter.

Do you think RPGs are the only co-operative tabletop games people play for fun?  http://www.boardgamegeek.com/tag/cooperative

Quote from: StuartIt's not surprising that people might think that way, no.

However, I'm interested in ways to make RPGs better and things that might make them more appealing to people beyond the core of the hobby. I think this is a very important issue to reflect on...

Hmm, honestly I have to think you're being disingenuous here.

I get the strong impression that rather than what you say in this post, you think it's objectively wrong and want to work from that assumption.

Which isn't going to get us anywhere.

Quote from: RedFoxHmm, honestly I have to think you're being disingenuous here.

I get the strong impression that rather than what you say in this post, you think it's objectively wrong and want to work from that assumption.

Which isn't going to get us anywhere.

I think designing a game that doesn't work without telling one or more of the players that they have to break the rules of the game to make it work... is bad game design.  Period.

That's the angle I'm approaching this from.  I'm not trying to convince you to change your ways, and if you've found a fun hobby, that's awesome.  I don't think that approach is helpful to thinking about designing new games though.  For that approach, you don't really need rules anyway...

Quote from: StuartI think designing a game that doesn't work without telling one or more of the players that they have to break the rules of the game to make it work... is bad game design.  Period.

That's the angle I'm approaching this from.  I'm not trying to convince you to change your ways, and if you've found a fun hobby, that's awesome.  I don't think that approach is helpful to thinking about designing new games though.  For that approach, you don't really need rules anyway...

Rules are not, and can never be, infallible.  It's the Golden Rule of almost every RPG ever printed.  If a rule doesn't work for this situation, change it, tweak it, ignore it, whatever.  The game is about fun, and making the game fun for you and the rest of your players.  

I think what the real problem is here is that you have some severe trust issues regarding authority and the GM position.  And no ruleset is ever going to fix that.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's not a goddamn competition.

Maybe not between the GM and the players, but there's definitely competition involved. Somebody (in this thread or another) explained it well. I'm to lazy to do a search, but it was basically along the lines of: everyone that rolls a die in an RPG is doing it because they're in competition with something at that moment. Whether it's the cliff you're climbing, the gaurd you're trying to sneak past, the nuke you're trying to disarm, themselves when making a save vs. fear, or even "fate" if the game supports luck rolls.

If there's no competition there's no chance for failure, and no reason for the impartial randomizer.

Quote from: James McMurrayMaybe not between the GM and the players, but there's definitely competition involved. Somebody (in this thread or another) explained it well. I'm to lazy to do a search, but it was basically along the lines of: everyone that rolls a die in an RPG is doing it because they're in competition with something at that moment. Whether it's the cliff you're climbing, the gaurd you're trying to sneak past, the nuke you're trying to disarm, themselves when making a save vs. fear, or even "fate" if the game supports luck rolls.

If there's no competition there's no chance for failure, and no reason for the impartial randomizer.

There's a difference between a challenge and a competition.

Dude, don't make me explain this shit.

This gets interesting when you bring in the possibility of cheating in a competition you picked for yourself.

Let's take a slight step into a related realm. Video games. Now, in a regular old video game you play the machine. There are a wide array of cheats available. Some people like them, some people hate them. The likers might not play without them, or only do so under extreme duress, the haters either just don't like playing with them, or actually think they 'ruin the game'.

Everyone agrees that people using cheats in multiplayer games is just ass. Except the cheaters, but since they are subhuman filth, who really cares?



Back to table top.  Most folks are willing to agree that RPG's aren't really meant to be PvP. Seriously. The GM is not the enemy, the other players are not the enemy.

Thus there is not a consensus about wether cheating is wrong.

Now, the GM is the computer, really. He gets to cheat as much as he can get away with, as long as it makes the game a challenge and fun. Pay enough attention and you'll see it all the time in games. The enemy is always cheating somehow.  Openly or subtly. It's often an attempt to overcompensate for less than optimal AI, othertimes its meant to provide real challenges.  

Now... the players are NOT the computer at all in this analogy. So a player cheating, unless all the players are in agreeance about the cheat, tends to be viewed as ass, just as if it were PvP gaming, even though it might be non-competetive.


If you view RPG's as player vs. GM, then certainly you'll think the cheating is ass.  But then, you probably can't admit that in public without being mocked these days.

Otherwise, you would accept that some people just like the cheating.


and that analogy twists on itself in ways that would make moebius proud. Deal with it.

THe vidgame analogy is good too, because in vidgames, you sort of come to expect that it's just part of the way things work, and it's only really a big deal if a game goes too far, and cheats too damn much.  

Balance is important in all things.  Too much damn extremism on these boards.