I like to follow the rules when I play games.

Quote from: Mencelus;291675I did something like this with a new group I have. I have no idea if anyone cared about it, mind you, but I did send an email outlining my expectations of the as players, and what I promised to do as GM.

I've found that it mainly helps to weed out players who don't fit the campaign or group style. For example, we are a no smoking (allergies) and no illegal substances group. I like to let people know that upfront. It's actually caused more potential players to back out over the years than the GM rulings trump game book rules has.

I agree with the "group contract" thing.  Sometimes we play by the book, and sometimes no one cares and we play fast-and-loose.  I also don't think the group contract comes solely from the GM laying down the law.  

Really, I used to be more of a fast-and-loose person.  I did play pretty by-the-book in the systems I liked, though, like James Bond 007 or Champions.  I was influenced into more fast-and-loose play in the nineties, though, using systems like Fudge.  I do think the Forge was an influence in my going back to more by-the-book play.  

While there are problems that can come up, I think that more by-the-book play builds better rules system -- including workable sets of house rules.  Individually, I'm OK with people using bad systems and then working around them case-by-case.  However, I'm sick of incredibly crappy rules systems being published, and people defending them by saying "They work well in actual play."  (Case in point - my disagreement here over the Decipher Lord of the Rings RPG.)

Quote from: jhkim;291689I think that more by-the-book play builds better rules system -- including workable sets of house rules.  

Depends on the system doesn't it? Not to mention the preferences of the group playing. No one system fits all.

System doesn't matter that much.

Quote from: RPGPundit;291631Do you really believe that the GM should be forced to obey the rules and should have no more right than the players to choose to ignore the rules?
RPGPundit

Yes, it's a game. Players of the game should have to abide by the rules of the game. Abiding by the rules makes for clear-cut decisions and easy play.

Also, the expectation that the rules are contained and "unbroken" has a knock-on effect. It encourages designers to write better rules and express them in a clear manner.

-L

I find it rather alarming, actually, that well thought out balanced rules are seen by some as a kind of detriment. Now, while I certainly will make a judgment call from time to time, I usually discuss it with the group- right then. If I wanted to make up a whole bunch of rules, I'd do another homebrew. The only time i really put my foot down is, like in the case I mentioned above, when a player tries to use the rules against me in what I consider to be a metagamey way. I fuck with every monster I put on the table (and I make up more monsters than I pull from any game book) I'm upfront about it, and i make it clear that doing things like quoting hit die or maximum hit points at me during the middle of combat is totally uncool. However aside from that, I stick to RAW as much as I can. I only make up rules, or change rules when there isn't something to cover the situation at hand, or I think the rule as written is crap. Even in this, I tend to err on the side of the players- yes, Virginia your cleric CAN use a Sword.

I see the GM with the rules as like a magistrate with legislation in the common law system. That is, they follow it where it makes sense, but when it contradicts itself, or doesn't cover the particular situation, or violates natural justice - then they fill it in, build on it. The priority is not the principles of it all, but how it'll work in practice.

So if a rule is a strange abstraction, but things work out okay in game, we follow it; if a rule is a sensible model, but things work out badly in game, we bin it.

A GM has a bit more power to mess with the system than does a magistrate. But this is balanced by the fact that while a magistrate is appointed by an outside authority and is also impossible to remove, a GM can be removed by the players at any time. The players vote with their feet, and that's that.

In practice the threat of that, plus normal social stuff of not wanting to piss off your mates, these keep the GM's arbitrary decisions from being stupid or abusive, and they'll usually listen to player comments on them.

Quote from: Aos;291692I find it rather alarming, actually, that well thought out balanced rules are seen by some as a kind of detriment.

I don't think that well thought-out, balanced rules are a problem at all, personally.

What I think is a problem is to believe that a well thought-out, balanced rules set equates to game balance. This, I do not agree with. It is ultimately the role of the game master to balance the game, because the game itself isn't about the characters being faced with challenges, but rather about how the players perceive their characters' challenges and how it all ends up being entertaining or not to them.

From a pure rules perspective, for instance, a Fighting Man (or Fighter) in earlier editions of D&D might be looked upon as "unbalanced" when compared to say a Paladin or a Wizard. But if the DM makes sure every player has its share of challenges, including the Fighting Man's, then everything in the end is balanced, as far as the game is concerned (the "game" being what happens at the table while playing rather than a set of mechanics on paper).

Quote from: Aos;291692I find it rather alarming, actually, that well thought out balanced rules are seen by some as a kind of detriment.

No set of RPG rules -- no matter how well thought out and well-balanced for the campaigns ran by their designers' and their playtesters -- has ever been very well-balanced when used for either of my primary campaign worlds. This is one of the two things most people seem to often forget about "game balance" -- CAMPAIGNS can be balanced, rules that can be used with any campaign really can't be. The second thing people forget is that there are many different meanings to "game balance" and not everyone means the same thing when they talk about it.

Some things that people may mean when they talk about game balance: Combat balance (all characters at a given power level are equally effective in combat; Combat balance (combat between approximately equal forces will result in a draw most of the time); Character balance (characters have an equal amount of advantages and disadvantages); Character balance (no character of the same "level" is more or less powerful than another); Spotlight balance (all characters can get near equal time in the spotlight no matter what the focus of the adventure is); Concept balance (all rational character concepts are equally viable); etc., etc.

No set of rules is likely to satisfy all the difference meanings of "balance" -- even in just the designers' and playtesters' campaigns. And every player and GM concerned with "balance" will complain that the game isn't balanced if their pet meanings of balance are ignored.

Quote from: Benoist;291698I don't think that well thought-out, balanced rules are a problem at all, personally.

What I think is a problem is to believe that a well thought-out, balanced rules set equates to game balance. This, I do not agree with. It is ultimately the role of the game master to balance the game, because the game itself isn't about the characters being faced with challenges, but rather about how the players perceive their characters' challenges and how it all ends up being entertaining or not to them.

Truthfully, I like well thought out balanced rules (and by this I mean rules that work in most situations, nothing, after all, is perfect) I don't give a rat's ass about game balance, whatever that is,  really.

I believe that for normal RPGs the GM is the ultimate authority.

Quote from: RandallS;291699No set of RPG rules -- no matter how well thought out and well-balanced for the campaigns ran by their designers' and their playtesters -- has ever been very well-balanced when used for either of my primary campaign worlds. This is one of the two things most people seem to often forget about "game balance" -- CAMPAIGNS can be balanced, rules that can be used with any campaign really can't be.

This statement isn't an explanation; it is in need of an explanation. Why can't rules be balanced?

Quote from: RPGPundit;291631Let's put the balls to the wall here: which one is it? Do you really believe that the GM should be forced to obey the rules and should have no more right than the players to choose to ignore the rules?

If so, defend that, and show us where the bad White-wolf-GM touched you.

RPGPundit

I'm a solid rules over GM proponent.  So hang me already.

It's not White Wolf that's the cause.  No, it's years and years of absolutely horrible GMs, starting with the guy in junior high who killed my character every single session while heaping rich rewards on the other players, to the guy running Delta Green with Esoterrorists a while back, to the guy who was trying to run 4e for our group a couple weeks back.

I'm sorry.  Being GM doesn't give a body carte blanche to dick over the players.

Quote from: jrients;291701I believe that for normal RPGs the GM is the ultimate authority.

That's a circular definition.

Quote from: David Johansen;291703I'm a solid rules over GM proponent.  So hang me already.

It's not White Wolf that's the cause.  No, it's years and years of absolutely horrible GMs, starting with the guy in junior high who killed my character every single session while heaping rich rewards on the other players, to the guy running Delta Green with Esoterrorists a while back, to the guy who was trying to run 4e for our group a couple weeks back.

Whereas for me, it's based on many, many years of being the GM and discovering that it's a lot easier to follow rules.