TheRPGSite

Let'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

In theory, I'm all for the GM-as-god mode.

In practice, players of all stripes love to argue when you don't follow the rules (or at the very least, voice their annoyance), so be prepared to have an upset flock if you play too fast and loose with the rules.

Rulings, not rules.
The GM makes the call. Rules are guidelines. Nothing more.

I think the referee should play by the rules as much as possible, to give the players a reasonable opportunity to use system knowledge (as well as character knowledge) to their advantage, but the referee is the ultimate arbiter over how the rules are applied in the game and what rules are used (or not), including house rules.

The Magic Deer.

Rulings, not rules. It's always worked more me as GM -- and barring the rare "killer" GM as a player.

Part of the reason I like it as a player is I'd rather the GM just decide something and continue the game than stop and look it up in the rules and try to apply it to the given situation for 10-15 minutes.

Quote from: Aos;291645The Magic Deer.

For referees who prefer to wear the antler hat.

Just like published adventures, rulesets rarely survive contact with the play group. It is simply a matter of degree.

It's the nightie that comes with that hat that really does it for me.

Should the GM follow the rules? Absolutely. In every way. And the rules he or she should be following are the group's rules. In some cases, that will mean following the written rules of the game. In some cases, the GM won't be expected to follow the rules or all the rules. But it's the "social contract" that matters, not the game.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;291663But it's the "social contract" that matters, not the game.

Would you agree that the game - the system used in play and the rules contained in that system - is part of the social contract as well?

Quote from: Seanchai;291663Should the GM follow the rules? Absolutely. In very way. And the rules he or she should be following are the group's rules. In some cases, that will mean following the written rules of the game. In some cases, the GM won't be expected to follow the rules or all the rules. But it's the "social contract" that matters, not the game.

Seanchai

This is pretty much how I look at it.

That said, I tend to prefer simpler games that leave the GM a lot of latitude, but rulings are always open to discussion after a session is over.

Quote from: The Shaman;291664Would you agree that the game - the system used in play and the rules contained in that system - is part of the social contract as well?

I would think so, at least to a degree, as the group is at least tacitly agreeing to play that particular game. I mean, they're all there, around the table, of their own free will, right?

Seanchai

Quote from: The Shaman;291664Would you agree that the game - the system used in play and the rules contained in that system - is part of the social contract as well?

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. I have a handout that I give all new players. One of the first things it says about my games is that the GM, not the rulebook, runs the games and that if any of the GM's rulings, house rules, or standard procedures differ from the game's rules, the rules are superseded. Players who do not like this are told they would probably be much happier in another GM's games. (And Rules Lawyers are bluntly told they simply are not welcome.)

Quote from: RandallS;291672It can be, but it doesn't have to be. I have a handout that I give all new players. One of the first things it says about my games is that the GM, not the rulebook, runs the games and that if any of the GM's rulings, house rules, or standard procedures differ from the game's rules, the rules are superseded. Players who do not like this are told they would probably be much happier in another GM's games. (And Rules Lawyers are bluntly told they simply are not welcome.)

I 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. We had the first session this past Saturday and all went well, though I have no idea if it had anything to do with my little manifesto. Good for me though, no?

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=277838&postcount=9) 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.

The GM should facilitate play. That is they are allowed to help ease the rules into use, to depart from them if needed, and to otherwise help move the game towards "fun" for everyone involved. The game rules are a starting point of common ground, which can be stuck too, or deviated from, once everyone is brought up to the same speed.

Quote from: Aos;291702Why can't rules be balanced?

Because ultimately rules don't exist in a vacuum but are applied in a game that involves particular people with particular needs, wants, tastes, personalities and inclinations.

At best, a game designer just eyeballs what might be an average gaming group, but that's all it is. Now, I'd argue there's actually no such thing as an "average gaming group", so the exercise after a certain point is wishful, theoretical thinking, and doesn't actually have any beneficial effect on the actual game play of the end users.

To take my example of the Fighting Man and the Magic User, on the paper the Magic User with all his spells might look powerful, but if the Fighting Man's player is a resourceful, cunning, active player where the Magic User's would be hesitant, shy and rather dull at the game table, then the Fighting Man will end up being the most effective character in the actual game.

Quote from: Benoist;291708Because ultimately rules don't exist in a vacuum but are applied in a game that involves particular people with particular needs, wants, tastes, personalities and inclinations.

At best, a game designer just eyeballs what might be an average gaming group, but that's all it is. Now, I'd argue there's actually no such thing as an "average gaming group", so the exercise after a certain point is wishful, theoretical thinking, and doesn't actually have any beneficial effect on the actual game play of the end users.

To take my example of the Fighting Man and the Magic User, on the paper the Magic User with all his spells might look powerful, but if the Fighting Man's player is a resourceful, cunning, active player where the Magic User's would be hesitant, shy and rather dull at the game table, then the Fighting Man will end up being the most effective character in the actual game.

That strikes me as more of an issue of player imbalance- which happens every time two people sit down to play a game (even somthing as codified as chess) and hardly strikes me as a problem with the rules. In fact, if such differences in capability were muted by the rules, that would stirke me a imbalance- becuase the rules would have to be unequally applied. were i the more capable player I'd feel rooked. whereas in a system that does not mute the differences in player capabability the 'bad' player has three options: continue to suck, get better, or quit.

I think all the players at the table, including the GM, need to agree on the rules of that game or things will be dysfunctional.  Unless otherwise agreed to in advance, playing a game means you're all agreeing to play by the rules of that game.

If you want to play a game where the GM should be making a lot of rulings and not be overly restricted by the rules -- pick a rules-light system.

I'm not saying that there would be a "problem with the rules". I'm saying that rules by virtue of being rules on a page cannot deal with actual game balance. Let's not forget that we're talking about role-playing games here, which have everything to do with the player's inclinations, tastes, proactive behavior... and eventual degree of suckage.

That's why you have a GM to begin with, and that's why only a GM (with the assistance of the players) can create actual game balance.
Not rules.

Now, I don't want people to believe I'm actually saying rules are useless. That's not true.

Rules ARE useful.

Rules help create a climate of trust and cooperation, a basic compact, if you will, between players and GM, so that everyone knows what they're getting into in terms of the way the game milieu will actually function.

If I was to modify the rules of the game, that means I would be upfront about it and make sure the players know about it. I won't take them by surprise or first agree to use a certain rule to then ditch it on the spot (unless the players agreed with me at the moment, of course).

Can something static, with no life or mind of it´s own ever be the arbiter of anything?? Maybe some very hard core gamers are starting to hear their rulebooks speak!

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

And what about kinky ones?

This thread and the other one, the Pundit started, same shit different shovel.

Who the ultimate aribter is depends on what the group agrees to. That's about it, really.

Regards,
David R

And thus has ever been!

Quote from: David R;291744Who the ultimate aribter is depends on what the group agrees to. That's about it, really.

This. I was just about to post this.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;291750This. I was just about to post this.

-clash

I concur. It is variable and determined by group preference.

Quote from: droog;291705That's a circular definition.

Yes.

Lets talk about the impact of mullets, or the reduction thereof on RPGs.

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

The GM is God and the rules are the GM's servant, not the GM's master.

Wear your Viking Hats with pride.

Quote from: Aos;291702This statement isn't an explanation; it is in need of an explanation. Why can't rules be balanced?

They can be (well almost), provided everyone is playing in the exact same campaign running the exact same adventures. 4e, for example, is very well-balanced for RPGA style play. This "perfect" balance begins to break down once people start designing their own adventures and often falls apart if people design their own campaign world where the campaign assumptions built into the rules are no longer completely true.

Of course, even rules with RPGA style play are only really in balance if all GMs run the campaign world and adventures exactly the same way, with as little variation from the designer's intent as possible. (All aboard the railroad! Tickets please!).

Even here things can go wrong and spoil the balance. Say you are playing 3e and have a player like me who isn't interesting studying thousands of pages of rules to build highly optimized characters or you are playing 4e and have a player not interested in the fiddly details of 4e's tactical combat?  The designer probably did not plan for that, so the rules can easily be out of balance when such a player is in the game.

Some games even assume a group will have a set number of players and go out of balance when the group is a player or two larger or smaller than the number the rules were designed for.

Therefore, I think the idea that RPG rules should be balanced is a pipe dream. It's an impossible standard that no RPG designer can meet. Therefore it is up to the GM to balance things for his campaign world, adventures, group play style and group member interestes, disinterests, and quirks.

Quote from: Aos;291758Lets talk about the impact of mullets, or the reduction thereof on RPGs.

I personally think it's significant that I had the reverse mullet. What do you think?

Quote from: jrients;291756Yes.

And that's a logical fallacy.

What I want to know is where did the BigBadWhiteWolfPlayers touch the Pundit. Or is all of this like a Ted Haggard thing, where behind closed doors, the Pundit goes - "collaborate me"....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RandallS;291699No 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. :(

I'd agree with that.  Essentially all systems give GMs plenty of input into the process, and there's nothing wrong with that.  However, the topic was about the GM going beyond the rules.  i.e. If the GM thinks that character creation isn't balanced for his campaign, should he try to come up with a house rule or ruling that works for everyone, or should he just do something special for this character or that character?  

Regarding character creation -- the times when I've seen special GM dispensation to go outside the rules for certain PCs have usually gone over poorly; though conversely I do think that the GM should disallow certain otherwise-legal PCs, which may be necessary for a variety of reasons.  (This is usually written into the rules for point-build systems.)

Quote from: RandallS;291767Therefore, I think the idea that RPG rules should be balanced is a pipe dream. It's an impossible standard that no RPG designer can meet. Therefore it is up to the GM to balance things for his campaign world, adventures, group play style and group member interestes, disinterests, and quirks.

This is like a caveman saying, "You know, Og, that wheel will never amount to anything. You better stop tinkering with it and get back to huddling around the fire."

-L

Droog - As a GM, and I've GM'd far more than I've played over the years I always veiw opportunities to play as excellent learning experiences.  Heck, as a GM over the last thirty years, the number of players I've seen who could be arsed to learn the rules can be counted on one hand...

Mullets - It's not a mullet unless you go to a hair dresser and get the top taken off and leave the back.  I've got a mop at the moment, I've had mullets, albeit shorter ones.  I actually like my hair short but I generally don't have the time to get it cut regularly.  And that's why D&D sucks...

Group Preference - The group doesn't know what it wants until I tell them what they wants damnit!

Quote from: luke;291780This is like a caveman saying, "You know, Og, that wheel will never amount to anything. You better stop tinkering with it and get back to huddling around the fire."

Actually it's nothing like that. In brief: you are a cocksmock.

In detail: you may have called your own needlessly complicated rpg Burning Wheel, but it's nothing so revolutionary or useful as an actual wheel. It's just a game.

The wheel is a tool of universal application and usefulness. Whether you like it or not, it rolls or doesn't roll, depending on how well it's made.

An rpg is not a useful tool, but a game, and therefore has to match the tastes of the people using it. It's no use playing chess if you've no patience for waiting for the other player to move, nor playing Doom if you dislike violence, still less playing Myst if you hate puzzles.

Games must match the temperament of the players to be fun. Given that human temperaments vary, there can be no One True Perfect Game, nor any sense in seeking it out. The best we can hope for is as Grace Jones sung, "you're not perfect, but you're perfect for me."

Saying that System Matters or that rules trump GM is saying that some game designer who never met anyone in my group knows better what they'll enjoy than they do, or their actual GM does. System Matters just means "the game designer is the best GM." Which is obviously bollocks.

Quote from: luke;291780This is like a caveman saying, "You know, Og, that wheel will never amount to anything. You better stop tinkering with it and get back to huddling around the fire."

-L

rpgs aren't balanced because every PLAYER is different.  I've yet to see a golf handicap rule in gaming where poor players are rewarded for being poor players.  The closest I can think of is D&D 4e's anal retentive, nitpicky straight-jacket.  And even there one player will grasp the tactical options and apply them while the other will just grab for the most damage per round and wonder why they're so ineffective.

Quote from: luke;291691Yes, 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

No, it encourages rigid micro-games that are nothing more than paeans to the alleged genius of pretentious game designers.  And it turns GMing into a tedious monopoly-banker-esque chore with no reward.  A trained monkey could do the same job, if it could but speak.

RPGPundit

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.

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

But the problem there is not "The GM doesn't follow the rules!!", its "our GM is a dick".  FORCING him to follow the rules would just turn him into a dick who follows the rules. It wouldn't solve the fundamental problem.

Meanwhile, FORCING all GMs to follow the rules basically destroys the capacity of truly excellent GMs to do their job, meaning that you will never play more than mediocre games.

RPGPundit

The truly excellent GM can use whatever tools are handed him.

Pundit's question is a bit ambuguous. If by "ignoring the rules" he means that a GM can alter, remove or add to the game rules at will as long as he gives warning to the group, and that he gets to make rulings to cover parts that the games rules don't or are fuzzy about then yeah, I think he should be free to do that.

If on the other hand it means the GM gets to ignore all rules and rulings at his whim during the game, like say, decree the critical a player rolled to chop off the head of his NPC darling fails "just because" then no.

I agree with Edsan. Altering the rules because it will make "the story" better or more exciting (in the GM's estimation) is not something I'm in favour of. Making rulings on things not covered by the rules, or changing a rule the group agrees is illogical (and in advance of any dice rolls) is a different matter.

I wonder how many GM's in favour of changing the rules want to do so for the first reason, and how many for the second?

Quote from: jhkim;291779Regarding character creation -- the times when I've seen special GM dispensation to go outside the rules for certain PCs have usually gone over poorly; though conversely I do think that the GM should disallow certain otherwise-legal PCs, which may be necessary for a variety of reasons.  (This is usually written into the rules for point-build systems.)

Most of the complaints I gotten over the years have been when I disallowed characters that player thought were legal under the rules. This is mostly in point-buy games like HERO or GURPS when the character either was min-maxed to the point that it was 2 or 3 times the desired campaign power level but still with the point limit set.

My solution was to stop setting point limits or worrying about mathematical balance between advantages and disadvantages.  I told player the desired power level and told them to create an interesting character that fit the campaign description at or below that power level without worrying about point costs. I would look over characters and help players rewrite those that I thought were too powerful. More GM Fiat, but it worked fine. Characters often did not look balanced point-wise/game-system wise, but were fine in play. I would still get bitching from the min-maxers who had their tool for showing up all other characters taken away, of course.

The system, but the GM has absolute say as to which elements of the system they intent to use, any modifications to the said system they intend to play and in the event where the system is unclear they can interpret the system through a logical extrapoltaion of existing rules.
All of this stuff should be set up front before play begins along with any other flavour type rules, will the game be gritty or cinematic, will social interactions be roleplayed or based on skills (I don't mean the general chit chat but situations where a skill might be appropriate), will you use languages or can everyone speak the same tongue (never nice to spend 1/2you skill poiints on laugauges you never use).
If you stick to these basic premises then there are generally no issues and let the dice fall where they may.

Quote from: Edsan;291802If on the other hand it means the GM gets to ignore all rules and rulings at his whim during the game, like say, decree the critical a player rolled to chop off the head of his NPC darling fails "just because" then no.

What's to stop a poor GM from doing that without apparently going outside the rules? The GM just preloads the character with nice magic/superscience/whatever items to prevent such things from being effective. Or has the character protected by the Gods in some way (e.g. Achilles protected everywhere but his heel).

Any competent GM can royally jerk over the players AND follow the rules in any RPG (the more rules it has, the easier it often is).  So following the rules doesn't protect the players if I want to be a jerk/killer GM, but trying to strictly follow those rules can greatly limit my ability to run a good campaign that the regulars and the majority of compatible with the group newcomers will really enjoy (by prevent the use of my campaign worlds among other things). My solution: those who want their GM to follow the rules at all times -- even when not doing so would make a better game for the majority of those at the table -- can play in some other GM's game.

Quote from: RandallS;291824What's to stop a poor GM from doing that without apparently going outside the rules? The GM just preloads the character with nice magic/superscience/whatever items to prevent such things from being effective. Or has the character protected by the Gods in some way (e.g. Achilles protected everywhere but his heel).

And that is perfectly fine because the ubber-abilliy of the NPC was designed before gameplay comenced. What the GM has to do is abide by the limits he self-imposed on his own creations.

If he puts Achiles in the game and a PC shoots him in the ankle with a poisoned arrow, well...bye bye oh most mighty among the Greeks.

But if all of a sudden Achiles just develops an immune ankle, then the GM is just screwing  with the players.

Quote from: RandallS;291824Any competent GM can royally jerk over the players...

That's not a competent GM, I have better things to do than be the target of a GM's masturbatory preferences. :)

Quote from: RandallS;291824My solution: those who want their GM to follow the rules at all times -- even when not doing so would make a better game for the majority of those at the table -- can play in some other GM's game.

As long as you make clear what your rules are (i.e. dictatorship type game for majority of fun + GM wants to tell his own story) before the game starts and make them clear to newcomers all is fine and good.

Quote from: droog;291775I personally think it's significant that I had the reverse mullet. What do you think?

I think it's an early indication that you would eventually become an RPG heretic.

It's not just a matter of the GM being a jerk or "killer" GM -- changing rules to guarantee player success is just as bad in many ways.  Even with the best of intentions, changing rules can have unforseen effects.

Edit:  That is - changing rules secretly...

Quote from: Edsan;291827And that is perfectly fine because the ubber-abilliy of the NPC was designed before gameplay comenced. What the GM has to do is abide by the limits he self-imposed on his own creations.

If he puts Achiles in the game and a PC shoots him in the ankle with a poisoned arrow, well...bye bye oh most mighty among the Greeks.

But if all of a sudden Achiles just develops an immune ankle, then the GM is just screwing  with the players.




That's not a competent GM, I have better things to do than be the target of a GM's masturbatory preferences. :)

The above is a good example of a GM being an asshole, but let me give an example where playing strictly by the rules would have fucked everything up.

    d20 Traveller game, the PCs have just gotten enough information to start the adventure and are jumping to the destination system. We roll to see if the ship misjumps. It does. Badly, so bad that the result according to the dice roll and the rules is the destruction of the ship. Now, if I wasn't a Viking Hat GM, then I would have had to let the entire game fall apart before it had even begun in order to follow the rules.

Instead I fudged the dice because I am the arbiter of the rules and not a computer following a program. The game went on, the PCs ship did not explode killing all the characters.

Quote from: Edsan;291827And that is perfectly fine because the ubber-abilliy of the NPC was designed before gameplay comenced.

How do the players know they were? From the player's POV, there is no difference between the ability having been designed into the character from before the character was introduced and the GM adding the ability on the spot to keep the character alive. In fact, there is no way for the players to tell which is the case. All they know is they got a critical that should have cut the character's head off and that's not what happened.

QuoteIf he puts Achiles in the game and a PC shoots him in the ankle with a poisoned arrow, well...bye bye oh most mighty among the Greeks.

If it is actually Achilles, that would be true as the players would know for a fact (due to metagame knowledge) that Achilles heels were not protected. However, let's say the characters is "Fredrick the Terrible."  The characters were told by supposedly knowledgeable in game sources that if you hit him in the bare heel, he'll keel over dead. The players do so and Fredrick the Terrible doesn't die. If this because the information they had was incomplete or even completely wrong -- or was it because the GM changed his mind and protected the character? How would the players know?

QuoteAs long as you make clear what your rules are (i.e. dictatorship type game for majority of fun + GM wants to tell his own story) before the game starts and make them clear to newcomers all is fine and good.

On this much we agree. So long as the GM and group are clear on the style of play, then any style of play is fine.

Quote from: jeff37923;291832The above is a good example of a GM being an asshole, but let me give an example where playing strictly by the rules would have fucked everything up.

    d20 Traveller game, the PCs have just gotten enough information to start the adventure and are jumping to the destination system. We roll to see if the ship misjumps. It does. Badly, so bad that the result according to the dice roll and the rules is the destruction of the ship. Now, if I wasn't a Viking Hat GM, then I would have had to let the entire game fall apart before it had even begun in order to follow the rules.

Instead I fudged the dice because I am the arbiter of the rules and not a computer following a program. The game went on, the PCs ship did not explode killing all the characters.

The problem there is with the system. Any rule that says 'when you do standard action x there is a % chance you will die with no chance of a save' is a daft rule. Why would that ever be a good rule to have in a game?
I mean the whole traveller mechanic of your character dying during character gen was a litle odd in any case :-)

Quote from: jeff37923;291832d20 Traveller game, the PCs have just gotten enough information to start the adventure and are jumping to the destination system. We roll to see if the ship misjumps. It does. Badly, so bad that the result according to the dice roll and the rules is the destruction of the ship. Now, if I wasn't a Viking Hat GM, then I would have had to let the entire game fall apart before it had even begun in order to follow the rules.

Instead I fudged the dice because I am the arbiter of the rules and not a computer following a program. The game went on, the PCs ship did not explode killing all the characters.

I'm not familiar with d20 Traveller - was that a risk the players knew about and chose?  Was there an alternative to taking that risk?

If that was a non-optional roll I'd be upfront with the players and we'd house-rule that out of the game.  I wouldn't make-believe they got lucky though "phew!  Another lucky roll guys..."

If that *was* an optional roll, I'd make sure the players understood the risk involved before they took the gamble... although I think I'd have house-ruled that out of the game immediately.  Anything that can wipe out the entire party on a single dice-roll in such a way shouldn't be in the game.

It'd be like rolling to see if the party contracts the plague in D&D and saying "Oh, I rolled 100 -- the entire party is dead".  That'd be pretty lame. :)

Quote from: RandallS;291833How do the players know they were? From the player's POV, there is no difference between the ability having been designed into the character from before the character was introduced and the GM adding the ability on the spot to keep the character alive. In fact, there is no way for the players to tell which is the case. All they know is they got a critical that should have cut the character's head off and that's not what happened.

What if the players expended resources following the correct course of action only to have you switch things around to make it an incorrect choice?  (eg. Fired off his last magic arrow and rolled a critical success)

What if your players are better at poker than you and can see it in your eyes that you're bluffing? :)

Quote from: droog;291776And that's a logical fallacy.

Perhaps I should try harder then.

I believe the GM is the ultimate arbiter in RPGing.  However, the GM can opt to relinquish this authority.  For example, I wouldn't run World of Synnibarr without following the rules calling for total adherence to the RAW and the GM's own adventure notes.  There'd be no point.  Ditto other fringe designs that place limits on the GM.  To ignore those rules would be the equivalent of bringing a jetpack to a bicycle race.

But for D&D and the vast majority of rpgs that interest me (i.e. what I called 'normal RPGs' in my first post in the thread), I would feel absolutely no such compunction.

Quote from: Stuart;291836What if the players expended resources following the correct course of action only to have you switch things around to make it an incorrect choice?  (eg. Fired off his last magic arrow and rolled a critical success)

How would they know they are following the correct course of action. I suppose if we were playing in Arn and Shimmira (THE Creator Goddess and ultimate power in creation) personally told them the "correct course of action" it would be. Other than some situation like that, the the "correct course of action" in Arn in no more certain than it is in real life.

QuoteWhat if your players are better at poker than you and can see it in your eyes that you're bluffing? :)

In that case, both players and GM are screwed -- at least when it comes to having any mystery in the game.

Quote from: RandallS;291838How would they know they are following the correct course of action. I suppose if we were playing in Arn and Shimmira (THE Creator Goddess and ultimate power in creation) personally told them the "correct course of action" it would be. Other than some situation like that, the the "correct course of action" in Arn in no more certain than it is in real life.

What's the point in playing a game then?  Why not just ask them to sit back while you tell them a story?

Edit:

Quote from: RandallS;291838In that case, both players and GM are screwed -- at least when it comes to having any mystery in the game.

Changing things on-the-fly isn't real mystery.  It's Chris Carter "X-Files" mysterious which isn't the same thing as a real mystery at all. :)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;291783Actually it's nothing like that. In brief: you are a cocksmock.

Oh Kyle, you say the loveliest things. However, you're conflating a bunch of unrelated ideas and hiding behind ideology.

Before you play chess with someone do you hand them a piece of paper that describes how you play chess in your house? "Here, in my house, the knight doesn't move in an L pattern. He moves how and when I say he moves."

Rules are rules. A game is designed in a certain way to encourage certain behavior. I understand that you yourself are too dumb to understand this, but I think this concept is self-evident to most people: You play a game by the rules to ensure that the game is fair and so that it produces the proper range of results.

When you play board games, do you reach across the board and grab the dice away from a player when he's about to do win and say, "You do not cross GO until I say so."

You and Pundit and company have a complex about the "power of the GM" and how he's special and he has more power than any other player in an RPG. You go on and on about swine, but this is the most swinish behavior of all in gaming.

RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.

Fatbeard GMs weezing macho edicts about bizarre social dynamics that must be obeyed in their group as the cheeze-doodle crumbs fall from their encrusted hairy mouths -- that's what drives people away from this hobby. Yes Kyle, in short, people like you.

I'll say it again: RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player. Loudly declaring the GM to be above the rules of the game is adolescent and truly swinish behavior.

This isn't about play style. This isn't about preference. Don't conflate them with this. A group is perfectly capable of determining its play style and what types of games it prefers. Play style and game preferences have nothing to do with playing a game as designed versus letting one player go on a macho patriarchal power trip and declare the game "his."

-Luke

Quote from: Stuart;291839What's the point in playing a game then?  Why not just ask them to sit back while you tell them a story?

Because I don't have a story to tell. The story comes from the PC's actions. Not having perfect information doesn't change that. Not knowing all the rules in advance doesn't change that. Not knowing if something was planned in detail in advance or thought up 10 seconds ago doesn't affect that.

I tend to run a huge sandbox where players can have their characters do what they want within the limitations of their character and the campaign reality -- note the lack of any mention of "within the limits of the rules". If they want to do something I don't have any plans for, I just make things up as we go along. Yes, entire adventures, dungeons, etc. made up on the fly during play -- I do it all the time.

QuoteChanging things on-the-fly isn't real mystery.  It's Chris Carter "X-Files" mysterious which isn't the same thing as a real mystery at all. :)

LOL. True. However, I was referring to the players being able to read my "poker face" and know when I'm changing things. If they can read my face that well, they'd also know when I'm giving them information that some NPC believes is true but I know isn't true.  If the players can reliably tell when I'm telling such things, there goes any chance of mystery.

Quote from: luke;291849RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.

On this point I agree with the guy with the little piggy tiara on his head and the prententious little white dress on. :D

Quote from: luke;291849Oh Kyle, you say the loveliest things. However, you're conflating a bunch of unrelated ideas and hiding behind ideology.

Before you play chess with someone do you hand them a piece of paper that describes how you play chess in your house? "Here, in my house, the knight doesn't move in an L pattern. He moves how and when I say he moves."

Rules are rules. A game is designed in a certain way to encourage certain behavior. I understand that you yourself are too dumb to understand this, but I think this concept is self-evident to most people: You play a game by the rules to ensure that the game is fair and so that it produces the proper range of results.

When you play board games, do you reach across the board and grab the dice away from a player when he's about to do win and say, "You do not cross GO until I say so."

You and Pundit and company have a complex about the "power of the GM" and how he's special and he has more power than any other player in an RPG. You go on and on about swine, but this is the most swinish behavior of all in gaming.

RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.

Fatbeard GMs weezing macho edicts about bizarre social dynamics that must be obeyed in their group as the cheeze-doodle crumbs fall from their encrusted hairy mouths -- that's what drives people away from this hobby. Yes Kyle, in short, people like you.

I'll say it again: RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player. Loudly declaring the GM to be above the rules of the game is adolescent and truly swinish behavior.

This isn't about play style. This isn't about preference. Don't conflate them with this. A group is perfectly capable of determining its play style and what types of games it prefers. Play style and game preferences have nothing to do with playing a game as designed versus letting one player go on a macho patriarchal power trip and declare the game "his."

-Luke

rhetoric aside, you examples have built in presumptions. The largest of these is a fixed view of the roles of each player in the group. The next one would be your definition of GM. Combine these two and you most likely have a very solid case in your opinion. I believe the reality is a spectrum with the role of the GM defined by what the group likes. I have see a few groups in my time and the GM functions different in every single one. This is not dysfunction, IMO, but the purest from of the malleability of an RPG.

Your examples of players reaching across the table and stealing dice or house chess rules are a combination of your own views that say "the GM is just another player" and mixing it with what your view of the role of the GM is. I always find this amusing in game designers. It happens a lot when you focus on how you perceive RPGs and get a bit myopic about other ways of viewing RPGs. You begin to play all games this way. If you think the GM is god, you make DitV or Sorcerer or name the game, even GMLess games, reflect it. It becomes a preferred way, a "right" way. Now, I work hard not to do this since it does not serve me well as a game designer. Someone who only plays or GMs? Hell, yes, this works to reinforce the way they enjoy to play. However, to say, unilaterally, a GM with a strong hand is like someone in monopoly scooping up your dice is disingenuous at best.

Now, I imagine this will come off as though I am advocate of the "GM IS GOD" school of thought but really I am not. I tend to advise the GM to modify the rules to fit his group, for players to suggest mods, and to do so before play. I view this position as somewhere in the middle.

Quote from: RandallS;291853Because I don't have a story to tell. The story comes from the PC's actions.

Your example of changing things to have a particular NPC survive when the PCs would normally have killed him is having a story you want to tell.  The story of how that NPC does *not* get killed by the PCs. :)

Quote from: RandallS;291853I tend to run a huge sandbox where players can have their characters do what they want within the limitations of their character and the campaign reality -- note the lack of any mention of "within the limits of the rules". If they want to do something I don't have any plans for, I just make things up as we go along. Yes, entire adventures, dungeons, etc. made up on the fly during play -- I do it all the time.

All RPGs require some level of improvisation on the part of the GM.  However, if the GM begins improvising outcomes AFTER players have made choices (ask players to choose option A or B but they both lead to newly improvised 'C') then you might as well be playing a Storygame where everyone gets to contribute to the improvisation -- since that's what really matters, not the problem-solving that's normally the main part of the game for PCs in an RPG.

Quote from: RandallS;291853LOL. True. However, I was referring to the players being able to read my "poker face" and know when I'm changing things. If they can read my face that well, they'd also know when I'm giving them information that some NPC believes is true but I know isn't true.  If the players can reliably tell when I'm telling such things, there goes any chance of mystery.

It's easier to read someone when they've been surprised / blocked in an action than it is to read someone going over something they've already prepared for. :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;291834The problem there is with the system. Any rule that says 'when you do standard action x there is a % chance you will die with no chance of a save' is a daft rule. Why would that ever be a good rule to have in a game?

That is one of the reasons why I advocate the GM as final arbiter of the rules. If I had followed the RAW, the entire party would have been dead.

Quote from: Stuart;291835I'm not familiar with d20 Traveller - was that a risk the players knew about and chose?  Was there an alternative to taking that risk?

The misjump rules are risks that the players knew about and chose to take. There were no viable alternatives.

Quote from: Stuart;291835If that was a non-optional roll I'd be upfront with the players and we'd house-rule that out of the game.  I wouldn't make-believe they got lucky though "phew!  Another lucky roll guys..."

If that *was* an optional roll, I'd make sure the players understood the risk involved before they took the gamble... although I think I'd have house-ruled that out of the game immediately.  Anything that can wipe out the entire party on a single dice-roll in such a way shouldn't be in the game.

It'd be like rolling to see if the party contracts the plague in D&D and saying "Oh, I rolled 100 -- the entire party is dead".  That'd be pretty lame.

Exactly.

See, both of you have hit upon the crux of the arguement for me as a GM in regards to the rules. There is no set of RPG rules so well crafted that they do not require the common sense and judgement of a GM. Even with some of the best rules out there, random chance can fuck up your whole game night - so the GM is essential to facilitate the game. That isn't even including the possibilities that players themselves can come up with that the GM may have not considered beforehand and houseruled in advance.

Quote from: luke;291849Fatbeard GMs weezing macho edicts about bizarre social dynamics that must be obeyed in their group as the cheeze-doodle crumbs fall from their encrusted hairy mouths -- that's what drives people away from this hobby. Yes Kyle, in short, people like you.

-Luke

I suspect wandering around a con and overhearing some players gleefully talking about their characters throat raping a cabin-boy, or pretending to be scantily clad maids, or boy scouts being exterminated by the nazis drives away a fair few more.

Quote from: One Horse Town;291862I suspect wandering around a con and overhearing some players gleefully talking about their characters throat raping a cabin-boy, or pretending to be scantily clad maids, or boy scouts being exterminated by the nazis drives away a fair few more.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

Quote from: jeff37923;291861Even with some of the best rules out there, random chance can fuck up your whole game night - so the GM is essential to facilitate the game.

The GM is definitely essential to facilitate the game... but I can't think of how my game (D&D Basic Rules) for example could get ruined due to random chance.

I can see how the players could lose their characters due to taking risks and having bad luck, but that's not the same as random chance leading to a ruined game night. Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I can't think of any % all party killed type situations. :)

Quote from: Stuart;291865The GM is definitely essential to facilitate the game... but I can't think of how my game (D&D Basic Rules) for example could get ruined due to random chance.

I can see how the players could lose their characters due to taking risks and having bad luck, but that's not the same as random chance leading to a ruined game night. Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I can't think of any % all party killed type situations. :)

The whole party fails their saving throws for a spell effect, poison gas trap, drowning...

I'd say it can happen, although the mechanism through which it can happen would be different. The key for me is that we are discussing a TPK through random chance and not because the PCs decided to do something abysmally stupid. The GM isn't responsible for a TPK if the PCs want to demonstrate evolution in action by drowning in the gene pool.

The GM is the ultimate arbiter but he should let the players know about any rule changes he's making and he should also let his players know how these rule changes will be affecting thier play.

The GM is the final arbiter, though he should be willing to compromise a bit. A little give and take is a good thing.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;291867The GM is the ultimate arbiter but he should let the players know about any rule changes he's making and he should also let his players know how these rule changes will be affecting thier play.

That falls under the "don't be an asshole" clause for the GM. You can't expect the players to know what houserules exist if you don't tell them.

Quote from: jeff37923;291866The whole party fails their saving throws for a spell effect, poison gas trap, drowning...

I'd say it can happen, although the mechanism through which it can happen would be different. The key for me is that we are discussing a TPK through random chance and not because the PCs decided to do something abysmally stupid. The GM isn't responsible for a TPK if the PCs want to demonstrate evolution in action by drowning in the gene pool.

Just like the % for TPK in d20 Traveller, I wouldn't put anything into the adventure where you could have a situation where all the players are killed either.  No enemy Magic-Users with Sleep, no room-filling poison gas traps, etc.  I don't think those are random chance though, as much as bad adventure design.

Quote from: Stuart;291874Just like the % for TPK in d20 Traveller, I wouldn't put anything into the adventure where you could have a situation where all the players are killed either.  No enemy Magic-Users with Sleep, no room-filling poison gas traps, etc.  I don't think those are random chance though, as much as bad adventure design.

I'd disagree there. I've GM'd games where the dice so hated the players that they could not roll above a 6 on a d20 the entire evening. Sometimes it happens.

Quote from: luke;291849Before you play chess with someone do you hand them a piece of paper that describes how you play chess in your house?

Role-playing games are not chess. If they were, I'd rather play chess.

Quote from: jeff37923;291875I'd disagree there. I've GM'd games where the dice so hated the players that they could not roll above a 6 on a d20 the entire evening. Sometimes it happens.

That's dice and games. :)

Quote from: luke;291849Before you play chess with someone do you hand them a piece of paper that describes how you play chess in your house?

No, but I might say, "Hey, I prefer Peasant's Revolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_variant). Mind if we play that tonight?"

Given the number of chess variants out there, that's not your strongest example.

Quote from: Stuart;291877That's dice and games. :)

The great thing about rpgs, is that depending on what a group enjoys, bad rolls, are not necessarily a problem.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jeff37923;291832The above is a good example of a GM being an asshole, but let me give an example where playing strictly by the rules would have fucked everything up.

    d20 Traveller game . . .

Well, there's your problem right there. Poor choice of rule system.

Quote from: jeff37923. . . the PCs have just gotten enough information to start the adventure and are jumping to the destination system. We roll to see if the ship misjumps. It does. Badly, so bad that the result according to the dice roll and the rules is the destruction of the ship.

On a routine jump? That doesn't make sense. How exactly did they end up with a misjump?

A good GM can overcome the flaws in almost any system (the rules are just a tool).

But a good system can not overcome a GM with a lot of flaws (good tools can't overcome a poor craftsman).

Thus the GM is the Ultimate Arbiter as far as rules application goes, since System does not matter as much as a good GM.

Yet neither matter as much as good players.

For without good players, both GM and System are useless.

Quote from: RandallS;291833If it is actually Achilles, that would be true as the players would know for a fact (due to metagame knowledge) that Achilles heels were not protected. However, let's say the characters is "Fredrick the Terrible."  The characters were told by supposedly knowledgeable in game sources that if you hit him in the bare heel, he'll keel over dead. The players do so and Fredrick the Terrible doesn't die. If this because the information they had was incomplete or even completely wrong -- or was it because the GM changed his mind and protected the character? How would the players know?

THIS is a very big deal. Because if you have a situation where the hobby tries to FORCE GMs (and Players) to consider "The Rules" as more important and powerful than the GM, and make the GM bound to "the rules", it will lead to Player Inquisitions and Kangaroo Courts every time something happens that any player doesn't like.

"You changed the rules"
"No, you had bad information"
"But how do we KNOW?? You were just mad we discovered the thing about the heel, and then aribtrarily changed it, you can't do that!!"

Any RPG where the GM isn't implicitly given the authority to control everything that happens will lead to a situation where sooner or later, he will be subject to an Inquisition that can ruin a party.

And again, "One GM is being a Dick" is not a good reason to neuter ALL GMs. And a Dick who's forced to follow the rules will STILL be a Dick, and will still find ways to fuck everything up. So claiming that as the reason why GMs must be forced to obey the rules is a really empty argument.

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Shaman;291885Well, there's your problem right there. Poor choice of rule system.

I beg to differ on that one.

Quote from: The Shaman;291885On a routine jump? That doesn't make sense. How exactly did they end up with a misjump?

Astrogation skill check failed resulting in a misjump which, when rolled, resulted in "ship destroyed on entry into jump space". A 2% chance of getting that result on the misjump table, but all done according to the rules as written.

Quote from: RPGPundit;291894Any RPG where the GM isn't implicitly given the authority to control everything that happens will lead to a situation where sooner or later, he will be subject to an Inquisition that can ruin a party.

The GM could still be subject to an inquisition even if the rules gave the GM authority to control everything. So, what exactly is your point here ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPundit;291894"You changed the rules"
"No, you had bad information"
"But how do we KNOW?? You were just mad we discovered the thing about the heel, and then aribtrarily changed it, you can't do that!!"

This is, by the way, clearly a problem of trust towards the GM.
If I don't trust the players and/or if the player's don't trust in my ability to GM, there's no point in playing at all.

Quote from: luke;291849RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.

How the hell would you know? Judging by your utter ignorance here, you've never fucking played one.

QuoteI'll say it again: RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player. Loudly declaring the GM to be above the rules of the game is adolescent and truly swinish behavior.

No, its a longstanding ingredient of RPG play that has been accepted since the dawn of the hobby, and that a group of parasites who despise the RPG hobby in its current form are out to change as part of their grand vision of how to make RPGs into something entirely different, that would mostly appeal to a tiny group of sexually deviant, mentally disturbed pretentious pseudo-intellectualoids.

QuoteThis isn't about play style. This isn't about preference.

Oh, you're quite right there. It isn't about style or preference. Its about what IS OR ISN'T AN RPG, and about who will own the future of our hobby.

QuoteDon't conflate them with this. A group is perfectly capable of determining its play style and what types of games it prefers. Play style and game preferences have nothing to do with playing a game as designed versus letting one player go on a macho patriarchal power trip and declare the game "his."

You pathetic gimp.

Not to mention utter hypocrite, since for you all of this is about the GAME DESIGNER getting to go on his little fucking power trip of deciding for EVERYONE EVERYWHERE exactly "how" his game should be played and not wanting to allow gaming groups full of the "unwashed masses" to have the independence to be able to change any of your "genius" magnum opus.

Take away the GM's authority, and you really don't replace with with a "dictatorship of the players"; they get to have their spoiled way with the individual game, sure, they get their little jollies; but the one who really gets to be in control if the GM can't choose what rules to follow is the only guy who actually would get to decide anything about the rules in your master plan: You, the "illuminated" game designer.

So if you want to talk about "power trips"; I'd say you're on the ultimate fucking power trip: you're so fucking full of yourself that you think that you KNOW BETTER as to how a gaming group full of people you've never met and will never meet should be FORCED to play, than their own GM.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;291894And again, "One GM is being a Dick" is not a good reason to neuter ALL GMs. And a Dick who's forced to follow the rules will STILL be a Dick, and will still find ways to fuck everything up. So claiming that as the reason why GMs must be forced to obey the rules is a really empty argument.

RPGPundit

Truly, there are no system solutions for an out of game problem. A dick is a dick. If your GM is a dick, then system isn't going to change that.

Take system though. If the system sucks (i.e. Palladium), you can still overcome the flaws in that system with a good enough GM. There are exceptions however. Some game systems are so bad that even a good GM can't overcome their flaws (i.e. Cyborg Commando).

Quote from: David R;291899The GM could still be subject to an inquisition even if the rules gave the GM authority to control everything. So, what exactly is your point here ?

Regards,
David R

That if the GM is considered the ultimate authority, such an inquisition can't really do much other than question.  If the GM is considered subservient to the Rules, then it becomes something entirely different.

RPGPundit

By the way, this is Luke Crane:

(the guy standing up... well, if you could call that standing up):
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/65/214682522_a7b99d4245_b.jpg)

(http://www.agon-rpg.com/photos/luke_kills_with_a_stare_low.jpg)

I don't think you're anyone to make disparaging remarks about people looking like social retards there, Shorty Wiry Crazy Jim.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;291904That if the GM is considered the ultimate authority, such an inquisition can't really do much other than question.  If the GM is considered subservient to the Rules, then it becomes something entirely different.

This is really a disingenuos difference. You seem more worried that the players can make a case against the GM using the rules. If he wasn't being a dick, he would not have anything to worry about. If the players were just being arseholes, the GM should find another group. Like I said earlier, it all depends on the preference of the group. Some think of it as everyone around the table is playing a game so everyone should be bound by the rules. Others, prefer a more organic approach.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;291906This is really a disingenuos difference. You seem more worried that the players can make a case against the GM using the rules. If he wasn't being a dick, he would not have anything to worry about.

Wrong.  It has happened often in my experience that a player gets the feeling that somehow he's been "cheated" when in fact what was going on was something happening in the "background" of the setting or the adventure that neither he nor his character had any way of knowing.

The perfect example was already given with the "Achilles" example.  The PCs are told that Achilles has one weak spot, they're told that its his left wrist or whatever, and they go after him and attack his left wrist, and he kicks the living shit out of them, because they got bad intel.
But from the pov of a player, he might look at that and say "The GM changed the character! And hey, while we're at it how the fuck does this guy end up being invulnerable everywhere? What Feats did you give him, huh mr. GM? Is he CR-balanced? I want to see EXACTLY how you designed him!! What levels does he have?"

The second the GM has to justify anything, he'll be expected to justify EVERYTHING; and turns into the Monopoly Banker. He can't make a move outside of the rules, meaning any opportunity at real genius in GMing is stifled in favour of guys who will remember all the rules and lawyer back and forth with the players, with some shadowy Game Designer who's never met any of the people involved and might live a continent away acting as the only Ultimate Arbiter.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;291900This is, by the way, clearly a problem of trust towards the GM.  If I don't trust the players and/or if the player's don't trust in my ability to GM, there's no point in playing at all.

This argument is almost exclusively used by people who admit their preference is to do things with a game that I would not enjoy as a player - but would try and disguise the fact they were doing so and hope that I wouldn't notice. :)

Quote from: RPGPundit;291908Wrong.  It has happened often in my experience that a player gets the feeling that somehow he's been "cheated" when in fact what was going on was something happening in the "background" of the setting or the adventure that neither he nor his character had any way of knowing.

The perfect example was already given with the "Achilles" example.  The PCs are told that Achilles has one weak spot, they're told that its his left wrist or whatever, and they go after him and attack his left wrist, and he kicks the living shit out of them, because they got bad intel.
But from the pov of a player, he might look at that and say "The GM changed the character! And hey, while we're at it how the fuck does this guy end up being invulnerable everywhere? What Feats did you give him, huh mr. GM? Is he CR-balanced? I want to see EXACTLY how you designed him!! What levels does he have?"

The second the GM has to justify anything, he'll be expected to justify EVERYTHING; and turns into the Monopoly Banker. He can't make a move outside of the rules, meaning any opportunity at real genius in GMing is stifled in favour of guys who will remember all the rules and lawyer back and forth with the players, with some shadowy Game Designer who's never met any of the people involved and might live a continent away acting as the only Ultimate Arbiter.

RPGPundit

Yup, I kinda of figured that your personal experiences had colored your views on this issue.

The "Achilies" example is not really a perfect example because if they were the kind of players who felt that the GM had screwed them over, they would question him even without the advantage of having the rules on their side.

So, what it all boils down to, is that you are miffed that the rules would be used against the GM.

See, system truly does not matter. With a fucntional group dynamic and with any set of rules, the GM can show off his/her genius. (I know of genius GM who run games for a whole group of rules lawyers - meaning that they are all sticklers for rules....hasn't slowed them down at all)

Like I said. Functional Group + Any System = Good gaming.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPundit;291905By the way, this is Luke Crane

Although to be fair The RPGPundit doesn't quite look like Daniel Day Lewis either. ;)

Quote from: luke;291849Oh Kyle, you say the loveliest things. However, you're conflating a bunch of unrelated ideas and hiding behind ideology.

You broke my irony-meter.

The more rules one attempts to add, the more a role-playing game becomes like a board game.  At which point, you may as well break out the Heroscape.

In other words, adding rules upon rules to cover any possible situation divides the overall game into a series of shorter games, the rules for which may not correlate with the game itself or make any sense whatsoever.  There is no one set of rules that will efficiently and accurately cover any possible situation that could come up in a session.

Sight unseen, I will tell you right now that your Burning Wheel rules will need to be modified in some way if I were to use them.  You think they are self-contained and work perfectly, but that is only because you will use them to run the exact kind of session that you want to run.  I don't particularly want to run your session, however, and there is a vanishingly small percent of your consumers that want to run your session.

That type of game design is running the hobby into the ground surer than anything.

Quote from: Stuart;291911This argument is almost exclusively used by people who admit their preference is to do things with a game that I would not enjoy as a player - but would try and disguise the fact they were doing so and hope that I wouldn't notice. :)

Um, no.

Convention games or pick-up games at the FLGS or at school are all situations where you may not know either the players or the GM well enough to fully trust them not to be dickheads. That is one of the reasons why you play short session games, to get a better feel for the playstyles of the people you are considering gaming with (or inviting into your home to game).

As far as being an asshole goes, I've run into more players than GMs who have decided that their version of "fun" was to make everyone else miserable at the game table. Being an asshole gamer is not solely a GM only possibility.

Quote from: jeff37923;291917As far as being an asshole goes, I've run into more players than GMs who have decided that their version of "fun" was to make everyone else miserable at the game table. Being an asshole gamer is not solely a GM only possibility.

This correlates with my experience.

Quote from: Stuart;291857Your example of changing things to have a particular NPC survive when the PCs would normally have killed him is having a story you want to tell.  The story of how that NPC does *not* get killed by the PCs. :)

I seldom need to keep NPCs alive, but if I did for some reason, I would not hesitate to fudge to make it so.

QuoteAll RPGs require some level of improvisation on the part of the GM.  However, if the GM begins improvising outcomes AFTER players have made choices (ask players to choose option A or B but they both lead to newly improvised 'C') then you might as well be playing a Storygame where everyone gets to contribute to the improvisation -- since that's what really matters, not the problem-solving that's normally the main part of the game for PCs in an RPG.

Actually this is very close to the best way to run actual mysteries in RPGs. No matter what the characters do, they find the needed clues. They still have to put the clues together (and even recognize that something is a clue in some cases), but they don't miss clues because of bad die rolls or not making the decisions the mystery designer thought they should.  Is this the way to run all adventures?  Probably not, but it is a valid tool for certain types of adventures.

QuoteIt's easier to read someone when they've been surprised / blocked in an action than it is to read someone going over something they've already prepared for. :)

As I am improvising as I go along in most cases, everything is a "surprise."

Quote from: jeff37923;291917Um, no.

I've never seen anyone bring up the "You have to trusssssst me" argument if it wasn't used alongside "The GM can change any rule, anywhere, anyhow, at their whim" type arguments.  Like in this thread. :)

@RandallS I think InSpectres sounds like a better choice of game for your style of play than something like classic D&D.  If we were gaming together that's definitely what I'd suggest we play. :)

Quote from: Stuart;291920I've never seen anyone bring up the "You have to trusssssst me" argument if it wasn't used alongside "The GM can change any rule, anywhere, anyhow, at their whim" type arguments.  Like in this thread. :)

Fair enough, but I think you get my point.

Here's something that I'm just not grokking well.

If a player or players don't feel they can trust the GM of their game, then why would they put themselves in a position where they can have a miserable play experience? What kinds of rules actually make players feel "safer" in play than others? What is the defining characteristic of a game system that achieves this "player safety" threshold?

At some point, if you want to play in a RPG and are afraid of the GM being an asshole, you just have to cowboy up and take your chances because any game with a GM and players has the potential to be crap. The only other option is to just not play RPGs at all.

Quote from: jeff37923;291924If a player or players don't feel they can trust the GM of their game, then why would they put themselves in a position where they can have a miserable play experience? What kinds of rules actually make players feel "safer" in play than others? What is the defining characteristic of a game system that achieves this "player safety" threshold?

GM's who are upfront about the rules being at their whim are fine - I can choose not to play in those games.  And I would.

GM's who pretend they're going to follow the rules and then think it's okay to change them because they're the *GM*?  That sucks, and should actively be discouraged - like I'm doing here on this forum.

Quote from: jeff37923;291924At some point, if you want to play in a RPG and are afraid of the GM being an asshole, you just have to cowboy up and take your chances because any game with a GM and players has the potential to be crap. The only other option is to just not play RPGs at all.

The other option is to run the game, and set a good example of how it's done. ;) :D

Quote from: Stuart;291925GM's who pretend they're going to follow the rules and then think it's okay to change them because they're the *GM*?  That sucks, and should actively be discouraged - like I'm doing here on this forum.

Is this really all that common in your experience?  Not challenging you, just honestly curious.

Quote from: Stuart;291925The other option is to run the game, and set a good example of how it's done. ;) :D

Gotta agree with you 100% there.

Quote from: Stuart;291913Although to be fair The RPGPundit doesn't quite look like Daniel Day Lewis either. ;)

I'm of near-perfectly average height and weight, dress in $1000 suits, have my leather shoes shined regularly, have my hair professionally done, and am an excellent public speaker with impeccable manners in all variety of company, with proven credentials interacting with the "city fathers" (Masons), the "middle class" (Pipe Club), academics of all stripes, and geeks, common folk and the kids.

And I've been told, if The Wench is to be believed, that I have great lips.

I'd wager my social functionality against Luke Crane's any day of the week.

RPGPundit

Quote from: David R;291912So, what it all boils down to, is that you are miffed that the rules would be used against the GM.

No, what it boils down to is this (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/696631058/item/).

RPGPundit

Quote from: Stuart;291925GM's who pretend they're going to follow the rules and then think it's okay to change them because they're the *GM*?  That sucks, and should actively be discouraged - like I'm doing here on this forum.

So in the d20 Traveller game example I gave above, I should not have changed the rules and let the PCs die in misjump. Correct?  

Because, you know, I changed the rules since I was the GM. :D

Quote from: Stuart;291925GM's who pretend they're going to follow the rules and then think it's okay to change them because they're the *GM*?  

This is where I don't get you people. First of all, why in the name of all that's holy would you ever return to a person like this for a second session? Second, what set of rules in the world would ever stop someone like this from being this way? Do ya'all really, honestly think that if a person is inclined to behave this way any set of rules in the world, no matter how "complete" or extensive, would stop them from doing it? I just don't understand where these ideas come from.

Quote from: One Horse Town;291862I suspect wandering around a con and overhearing some players gleefully talking about their characters throat raping a cabin-boy, or pretending to be scantily clad maids, or boy scouts being exterminated by the nazis drives away a fair few more.

Your point stands- but there are a lot more of the guys luke is talking about,  A LOT MORE (Because as we are told over and over again here, nobody really plays Those games) so perhaps on a per capita basis you are correct, but if were talking about total number of players driven away, I'd have to say not so much. We could well do without either.

Damn you and your sensible middle ground, Aos.

Quote from: KenHR;291926Is this really all that common in your experience?  Not challenging you, just honestly curious.

That sentiment seems really, really common on some forums and blogs.  Fortunately it's much less common in the-real-world-as-I-know-it. :)

I've been the GM in the majority of RPGs I've played in over the years.  I'd like to be a player more often... but depending on the style of GM I'd pick different types of games for sure.

Quote from: KenHR;291934Damn you and your sensible middle ground, Aos.

sorry.
On the bright side, we could take my post as a springboard and get into a who has the more reprehensible nerds war.

Quote from: jeff37923;291930So in the d20 Traveller game example I gave above, I should not have changed the rules and let the PCs die in misjump. Correct?  

Because, you know, I changed the rules since I was the GM. :D

In the d20 Traveller example I'd tell the players about the wacky roll and let them know you're changing the rule on the spot.  I wouldn't pretend they'd just gotten lucky.  I guess the best option would have been to predict the % for total disaster and make a ruling before the dice were rolled.

I change all sorts of rules - but I let the players know what's going on.  I think it's important for all the players at the table to understand the rules of the game we're playing together.

Quote from: Sigmund;291931This is where I don't get you people.

I am legion?

Quote from: Stuart;291938In the d20 Traveller example I'd tell the players about the wacky roll and let them know you're changing the rule on the spot.  I wouldn't pretend they'd just gotten lucky.  I guess the best option would have been to predict the % for total disaster and make a ruling before the dice were rolled.

I change all sorts of rules - but I let the players know what's going on.  I think it's important for all the players at the table to understand the rules of the game we're playing together.

You know, even though we seem to have different ideas about what makes RPGs fun for us, I gotta say that this is pretty much how I handle in-session rules modifications.

Though I've never futzed with that particular Traveller rule; I like that one a lot. :)

Quote from: Stuart;291938In the d20 Traveller example I'd tell the players about the wacky roll and let them know you're changing the rule on the spot.  I wouldn't pretend they'd just gotten lucky.  I guess the best option would have been to predict the % for total disaster and make a ruling before the dice were rolled.

I change all sorts of rules - but I let the players know what's going on.  I think it's important for all the players at the table to understand the rules of the game we're playing together.

Ah-ha! I knew you were one of us! You just admitted to placing your very own judgement above the rules!

One of us!

One of us!

One of us!

Now go forth and wear your Viking Hat with pride!

:D

Quote from: Stuart;291939I am legion?

And with that, Blue Oyster Cult's tune Sole Survivor is now playing on the Soundtrack Of My Mind...

Quote from: KenHR;291941Though I've never futzed with that particular Traveller rule; I like that one a lot. :)

I do too, when it doesn't result in a TPK...

Quote from: Stuart;291939I am legion?

I don't care who ya are. Plus, I'm including any of ya'all that bitch about dick GMs, as if any particular set of rules would somehow magically fix that problem. You, in particular, talk about any kind of fudging on a GMs part being that GM telling their own "story", which ends up sounding to me like what you really want is to be able to tell your own particular story, which would include rigid structure and inalterable random elements, and don't want the GM being able screw it up for you. What you should do is find other folks (including a GM) who share your desire for that type of game, then the folks on the other side of the issue can do the same for their particular tastes, and the other 99% (completely fabricated statistic, before some of ya'all start arguing about that too) of us can just keep on not giving a shit either way and just game with folks we like no matter which way they run the game.

Quote from: jeff37923;291944I do too, when it doesn't result in a TPK...

Hehehe.  Yeah, I can see where you're coming from...it's an interesting study in the little differences between editions, though.

In Classic Traveller, the only way for the ship to be destroyed in jump is to attempt it too close to a gravity well (within 100 diameters).  It's a desparate move that the players are well aware might result in their destruction (and is almost certain to if they try jumping within 10 diameters).

I'd certainly change the rule in T20 if a botched skill check could yield the same result on a routine jump.

Quote from: jeff37923;291942Ah-ha! I knew you were one of us! You just admitted to placing your very own judgement above the rules!

One of us!

One of us!

One of us!

Haha.  My quarrel is with fake choices in games and liar liar pants-on-fire GMing, adding house-rules to make your game work better for your group. :D

Although needing to change the rules of a game mid-session says something is seriously wrong with that system.  As in busted-ass-broken.

Quote from: jeff37923;291942Now go forth and wear your Viking Hat with pride!

I'm of the Centurion Helmet school of GMing. :cool:

In answer to the OP question, I would say that the GM is the final arbiter.  The rules are like the Pirate's Code, but the GM is like the Captain of the ship.

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.

I believe that the GM should follow the rules, and any houserules the group agrees to use. Apart from that the GM has the responsability of making judgements on situations not covered by the rules, using them as a reference, and those judgements are final.

So yes, I feel that all the players at a game (the GM being another player with different functions) must obey the same rules.

It's not a problem about dick GMs, or something like it. For me it's a question of logic, and saying that RPGs are different just because is not convincing. For that matter, you could freeform anyway, because a rule that's broken at a whim is meaningless.

I've GMed games cheating dice rolls, fudging rules and all that, and now I don't do it and I enjoy my games better. There's no looking back for me.

And saying that the players need a benevolent dictator is retarded. There are no good dictators.

Quote from: Stuart;291948Although needing to change the rules of a game mid-session says something is seriously wrong with that system.  As in busted-ass-broken.

This is entirely incorrect.  Fifteen yards for excessive exaggeration.

Quote from: RPGPundit;291905By the way, this is Luke Crane:

(the guy standing up... well, if you could call that standing up):
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/65/214682522_a7b99d4245_b.jpg)

(http://www.agon-rpg.com/photos/luke_kills_with_a_stare_low.jpg)

I don't think you're anyone to make disparaging remarks about people looking like social retards there, Shorty Wiry Crazy Jim.

RPGPundit

Wow, you got really really puerile here.

Quote from: StormBringer;291954This is entirely incorrect.  Fifteen yards for excessive exaggeration.

I think you're being too conservative.

Quote from: Aos;291932Your point stands-

Correct.

Quote from: Imperator;291953It's not a problem about dick GMs, or something like it. For me it's a question of logic, and saying that RPGs are different just because is not convincing. For that matter, you could freeform anyway, because a rule that's broken at a whim is meaningless.

I've GMed games cheating dice rolls, fudging rules and all that, and now I don't do it and I enjoy my games better. There's no looking back for me.

And saying that the players need a benevolent dictator is retarded. There are no good dictators.

I'm very grateful I don't agree with you, I can't imagine being so tight-assed about a game unless I was making a living at playing it. In all my years of gaming, not once have I ever seen a GM change or ignore a rule, either for a single instance or as  a house-rule, on a whim. Even the very few suck-ass GMs I've been unfortunate enough to briefly game with had what seemed to them like solid reasons for the choices they made.

Thankfully, no GM in the world remotely resembles any kind of dictator even a little bit, since any choice a GM of an RPG makes is so unimportant in the larger scheme of things that they can be ignored at will with absolutely no meaningful consequences whatsoever.

Quote from: StormBringer;291954This is entirely incorrect.  Fifteen yards for excessive exaggeration.

Agreed.

Quote from: Sigmund;291960I'm very grateful I don't agree with you, I can't imagine being so tight-assed about a game unless I was making a living at playing it.

By that reasoning there would be no need of heeding the rules of other games, unless you were a professional player, which I don't think is your point.

QuoteIn all my years of gaming, not once have I ever seen a GM change or ignore a rule, either for a single instance or as  a house-rule, on a whim. Even the very few suck-ass GMs I've been unfortunate enough to briefly game with had what seemed to them like solid reasons for the choices they made.

Good for you. Other persons report on different experiences, and for me, for example, changing rules or rolls so your precious NPC doesn't die is a whim.

QuoteThankfully, no GM in the world remotely resembles any kind of dictator even a little bit, since any choice a GM of an RPG makes is so unimportant in the larger scheme of things that they can be ignored at will with absolutely no meaningful consequences whatsoever.

I'm not sure what you mean here, maybe because English is not my first language. Care to explain?

Anyway, I can accept that other people may play different than me without being terrorists or whatnot. If it works for your group, all the power to you.

Quote from: Sigmund;291946:blahblah:

If y'all are riding' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there.  :emot-clint:

Quote from: Imperator;291955Wow, you got really really puerile here.

He was the one who brought appearance into it, so he'd best be without sin if he plans to cast stones.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Imperator;291953And saying that the players need a benevolent dictator is retarded. There are no good dictators.

Cincinnatus was a good dictator.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;291972Cincinnatus was a good dictator.

Unless you were a plebeian (eg. middle or lower class).

Quote from: RPGPundit;291971He was the one who brought appearance into it, so he'd best be without sin if he plans to cast stones.

RPGPundit

Yeah, also puerile and childish on his part.

Re: Cincinnatus. Dude, though he was reputedly a great guy and shit (unless you were a plebeian), your argument still doesn't relate to GMing.

Quote from: Imperator;291955Wow, you got really really puerile here.

Gutless, too.

Come on, it was a pretty funny photo. The guy nearest looks like he either wants to commit murder or is waiting for someone to bend over to pick up the soap.

I didn't go looking for pictures that would make him look bad. I just googled him and those were the first two that came up.

Again, though, he isn't really the epitome of style or grace, judging by those photos.

RPGPundit

Let's see you, Don Juan.

Quote from: RPGPundit;291988I didn't go looking for pictures that would make him look bad. I just googled him and those were the first two that came up.

Again, though, he isn't really the epitome of style or grace, judging by those photos.

Again, it's irrelevant. I don't think it has anything to do with the topic, the same as with your own appearance. Wether you use 1000$ suits or dress in rags is of no consequence.

Yeah, I think it's rather poor form to be making personal attacks based a person's picture.  A person's outward appearance rarely, if not at all, has anything to do with their beliefs.

I dress differently for when I'm in the office or classroom compared to when I'm sitting around a gaming table.

Any moron can wear $1000 suits and look good.

This segment of the thread will be entitled, "Everything I Learned About Fashion, I Learned From Gaming."

Let the SAN loss begin.

Quote from: jeff37923;292008Let the SAN loss begin.

It began a long time ago in this thread.

Quote from: RPGPundit;291894Because if you have a situation where the hobby tries to FORCE GMs (and Players) to consider "The Rules" as more important and powerful than the GM, and make the GM bound to "the rules", it will lead to Player Inquisitions and Kangaroo Courts every time something happens that any player doesn't like.

THIS was the impetus for the DM empowerment focus in Living Forgotten Realms and its why 4e LFR has done a remarkable job getting people willing to DM who refused to don the Viking Hat during 3e.

However, Player Inquisitions existed in AD&D whenever you got a rules lawyer or two who thought they could muscle down the DM.  I imagine we lost many DMs back in the day because they got sick of the whining of rules bitches.  And losing DMs is far more detrimental to the hobby than losing players.  

Fortunately, my first words were "mommy", "daddy" and "shut the fuck up!" so being a GM came naturally.

Quote from: RPGPundit;291901How the hell would you know? Judging by your utter ignorance here, you've never fucking played one.

I know two gamers who played with Luke Crane at GenCon and they were very impressed with his ability to explain his games and run an exciting session.   Neither agree with his rules worship concept, but as a GM for a convention game, Luke supposedly does an excellent job with a lot of vibrant energy.

I disagree with Luke Crane on his GM stance, but many of his ideas in his RPGs are quite good.   His World Burning subsystem in Burning Empires is a really excellent tool for brainstorming.

Quote from: RPGPundit;291901Its about what IS OR ISN'T AN RPG, and about who will own the future of our hobby.

WotC owns the hobby.  

Quote from: luke;291849Rules are rules.

What a horrible concept.   Rules are made to be broken!

Quote from: luke;291849You play a game by the rules to ensure that the game is fair and so that it produces the proper range of results.

Fine for competitive events.   Meaningless for RPGs.

Quote from: luke;291849RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.

I fully disagree.

Prep time alone separates the role of GM from the role of player.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;291783System Matters just means "the game designer is the best GM."

There is a gray area between System Matters and Arbitrary GM Fiat.

I met a very good game designer a few years back who was a tremendously nice guy.   He had recently published a hot new RPG and I was eager to demo it with him.   O gods, what a terrible GM he was!  Nice guy, smart and generously explained the rules, but he completely lacked storytelling skills.

Quote from: RPGPundit;291794FORCING all GMs to follow the rules basically destroys the capacity of truly excellent GMs to do their job, meaning that you will never play more than mediocre games.

No GM can be forced to do anything.   When I realized that Burning Empires was not going to be enjoyable for me, the game became a sourcebook for other stuff.  

Quote from: jeff37923;291763The GM is God and the rules are the GM's servant, not the GM's master.

Wear your Viking Hats with pride.

Amen!

Quote from: RandallS;291767Some games even assume a group will have a set number of players and go out of balance when the group is a player or two larger or smaller than the number the rules were designed for.

Happens with boardgames and card games all the time.

Quote from: RandallS;291767Therefore, I think the idea that RPG rules should be balanced is a pipe dream. It's an impossible standard that no RPG designer can meet. Therefore it is up to the GM to balance things for his campaign world, adventures, group play style and group member interestes, disinterests, and quirks.

I sorta agree.

True balance is a pipe dream.   However, game designers owe their customers an attempt to make all choices in chargen good or at least interesting options.   There should not be options that are so blatantly superior that they nullify other choices.  

Quote from: Drohem;291949In answer to the OP question, I would say that the GM is the final arbiter.  The rules are like the Pirate's Code, but the GM is like the Captain of the ship.

Arrrgh!  Avast ye mateys, Drohem wins this here thread!

Quote from: jeff37923;291898Astrogation skill check failed resulting in a misjump which, when rolled, resulted in "ship destroyed on entry into jump space". A 2% chance of getting that result on the misjump table, but all done according to the rules as written.

Y'know, I was (halfway-)kidding about the problem being T20 earlier, but if a routine jump (i.e., not within 100D, undamaged, et cetera) can result in the destruction of the ship, that does seem like a system problem.

Quote from: The Shaman;292015Y'know, I was (halfway-)kidding about the problem being T20 earlier, but if a routine jump (i.e., not within 100D, undamaged, et cetera) can result in the destruction of the ship, that does seem like a system problem.

I probably should mention that they were jumping into an Empty Hex, so the skill check was more difficult (excpet it doesn't matter much when you roll a 2). Sometimes the dice just hate you.

Of course it's a rules problem. Unless you're willing to go with those results. Sometimes TPKs happen.

But why go through all the rigmarole of rolling for a result when you're just going to ignore it if you don't like it? The point of rolling is for it to produce a result you might not want.

Quote from: Spinachcat;292013However, Player Inquisitions existed in AD&D whenever you got a rules lawyer or two who thought they could muscle down the DM.  I imagine we lost many DMs back in the day because they got sick of the whining of rules bitches.  And losing DMs is far more detrimental to the hobby than losing players.

Showing rules lawyers the door does wonders for almost any RPG campaign -- and helps prevent early GM burnout.

QuoteTrue balance is a pipe dream.   However, game designers owe their customers an attempt to make all choices in chargen good or at least interesting options.   There should not be options that are so blatantly superior that they nullify other choices.

Even this can be hard given the large number of different campaign worlds, play styles, and players. What is a bad choice or an uninteresting choice for one player or in one style of play might be a great choice in a different style or for another player.

For example, many players consider characters that are sub-optimal in combat bad. However, as I find combat boring, those characters are often the ones I gravitate toward. They let me waltz through combat on autopilot and save my real effort for some of the out of combat stuff I enjoy. In fact, this is one of my personal complaints about 4e: it really lacks any classes that are poor combatants but good at other things for those of us who just aren't into combat.

Quote from: Imperator;291963By that reasoning there would be no need of heeding the rules of other games, unless you were a professional player, which I don't think is your point.

No, that is what I mean. There isn't a need to strictly adhere to the rules of any game. Some kinds of games lend themselves more to tinkering and modification than others, but in the end they're all just games. If I and the other players are happy and entertained, then we all win, no matter how we play. If I were to become a scholar of games, like some folks do with chess or poker, then my outlook on that might change in that context, but otherwise it's all good.

QuoteGood for you. Other persons report on different experiences, and for me, for example, changing rules or rolls so your precious NPC doesn't die is a whim.

Well if I "change the rules" so an npc doesn't die, it's not because it's "precious", but because that's the way the adventure is designed to go. I most often think of that issue in connection to the BBEG in a superhero game... the nemesis level villain, but whatever. The very fact you choose to characterize it as "precious npc" speaks volumes to me about your attitude towards your GMs.

QuoteI'm not sure what you mean here, maybe because English is not my first language. Care to explain?

I just mean that equating a GM of a RPG with a dictator is a little bit of a stretch (actually, a huge freakin leap), IMO. A bit too melodramatic.

QuoteAnyway, I can accept that other people may play different than me without being terrorists or whatnot. If it works for your group, all the power to you.

And here I agree with ya 100%. I said much the same in my reply to Stuart actually.

Quote from: Stuart;291965blah

Try posting something a little more meaningful and to the point next time. You might end up liking it.

Quote from: jeff37923;292008Let the SAN loss begin.

You haven't been paying attention to the previous 155 posts, right?

Consider yourself lucky...

Quote from: Spinachcat;292013...Player Inquisitions existed in AD&D whenever you got a rules lawyer or two who thought they could muscle down the DM.  I imagine we lost many DMs back in the day because they got sick of the whining of rules bitches.  And losing DMs is far more detrimental to the hobby than losing players.  

This is why I keep saying this has nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with the people around the table and the attitudes they bring with them. I wouldn't want to DM any game for folks who felt the need to nitpick and argue over every little ruling any more than I'd want to play with in game GMed by someone who disregards the feelings and expectations of everyone else around the table in favor of their own. When I'm a player I will point out rules for actions in-game when there's time and the GM is open to it, and when the GM says "This is the way it's going down, lets move on", I roll with it and move on. When I GM I stay open to discussion on issues to a point, but am not afraid to make a choice and stick with it if the game needs to keep moving, and I don't feel the need to discuss and put to a vote every ruling I make. I honestly thought most of us gamed this way. I guess I'm out of touch in some ways.

Quote from: Sigmund;292032This is why I keep saying this has nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with the people around the table and the attitudes they bring with them. I wouldn't want to DM any game for folks who felt the need to nitpick and argue over every little ruling any more than I'd want to play with in game GMed by someone who disregards the feelings and expectations of everyone else around the table in favor of their own. When I'm a player I will point out rules for actions in-game when there's time and the GM is open to it, and when the GM says "This is the way it's going down, lets move on", I roll with it and move on. When I GM I stay open to discussion on issues to a point, but am not afraid to make a choice and stick with it if the game needs to keep moving, and I don't feel the need to discuss and put to a vote every ruling I make. I honestly thought most of us gamed this way. I guess I'm out of touch in some ways.

QTMFT!

This is how I view it as well.  Well said, sir.

Quote from: Drohem;292034QTMFT!

This is how I view it as well.  Well said, sir.

I was impressed by that as well. Good show, Sigmund.

Quote from: droog;292017Of course it's a rules problem. Unless you're willing to go with those results. Sometimes TPKs happen.

But why go through all the rigmarole of rolling for a result when you're just going to ignore it if you don't like it? The point of rolling is for it to produce a result you might not want.

Because "result you might not want" does not equal "game wrecking tpk before we even reach the first spot in the adventure". I would fudge it too, make the ship suffer heavy damage that requires diverting to a nearby system with adequate repair facilities and an inconvenient expenditure, instead of "you're dead and reduced to dust floating through empty space, let's start making new characters".

Quote from: JongWK;292030You haven't been paying attention to the previous 155 posts, right?

Consider yourself lucky...

This made me laugh, thank you :)

Quote from: Sigmund;292036Because "result you might not want" does not equal "game wrecking tpk before we even reach the first spot in the adventure". I would fudge it too, make the ship suffer heavy damage that requires diverting to a nearby system with adequate repair facilities and an inconvenient expenditure, instead of "you're dead and reduced to dust floating through empty space, let's start making new characters".

For actual play I just misjumped them off course to a point where it would take them five jumps and about ten weeks of game time just to get back instead of killing them. The campaign was written as scenes the players could go through in almost any order, so I was able to use scenes they weren't going to get to immediately before making back to their origin point.

Again, a Hell of a lot better than a TPK for the second session.

Of course, if I had followed the rules and not made a ruling...  :D

Quote from: Sigmund;292036Because "result you might not want" does not equal "game wrecking tpk before we even reach the first spot in the adventure". I would fudge it too, make the ship suffer heavy damage that requires diverting to a nearby system with adequate repair facilities and an inconvenient expenditure, instead of "you're dead and reduced to dust floating through empty space, let's start making new characters".

Shit happens. Hell, in first ed. Traveller your chr could die before reaching the table. Of course, that hasn't proved a popular approach to chrgen.

Quote from: droog;292050Shit happens. Hell, in first ed. Traveller your chr could die before reaching the table. Of course, that hasn't proved a popular approach to chrgen.

Except that people still like to play that as a mini-game with Mongoose Traveller.

If you can't accept the results of a dice roll, you shouldn't be rolling the dice.  Good advice for players, and doubly good for GMs who claim to be wearing a Viking helmet. ;)

Quote from: Stuart;292053If you can't accept the results of a dice roll, you shouldn't be rolling the dice.  Good advice for players, and doubly good for GMs who claim to be wearing a Viking helmet. ;)

Stuart, you need to clarify that crap you just posted with "as long as it doesn't ruin everybody's fun". ;)

Quote from: jeff37923;292052Except that people still like to play that as a mini-game with Mongoose Traveller.

pop.u.lar \'pap-y*-l*r\ aj [L popularis, fr. populus the people, a people] 1: of or relating to the general public 2: suitable to the majority : as 2a: easy to understand : PLAIN 2b: suited to the means of the majority : INEXPENSIVE 3: having general currency : PREVALENT 4: commonly liked or approved - pop.u.lar.ly av

Quote from: droog;291706Whereas for me, it's based on many, many years of being the GM and discovering that it's a lot easier to follow rules.

This is where I'm at. I find it easier, when a player starts asking me question after question about character creation, the rules, etc., to say, "Look it up." Moreover, it's easier for me to remember what I said and did six sessions ago if I follow the rules than if I make a bunch of spot judgments.

Seanchai

Apparently that's not a rational argument, Seanchai old bean.

Quote from: Imperator;292002Again, it's irrelevant. I don't think it has anything to do with the topic, the same as with your own appearance. Wether you use 1000$ suits or dress in rags is of no consequence.

I would absolutely agree, except that Luke brought up the notion that those who disagreed with him are all overweight mouthbreathing "fatbeards" with poor hygiene who are destroying the hobby.

RPGPundit

Quote from: droog;292006Any moron can wear $1000 suits and look good.

I suppose I'd agree, except that the mark of a moron is that they tend not to do so.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;292078I suppose I'd agree, except that the mark of a moron is that they tend not to do so.

Never worked in a law office?

Quote from: RPGPundit;291929No, what it boils down to is this (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit/696631058/item/).

You sound like a Forger. Dodgy assumptions, passed of as facts.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jeff37923;292044For actual play I just misjumped them off course to a point where it would take them five jumps and about ten weeks of game time just to get back instead of killing them. The campaign was written as scenes the players could go through in almost any order, so I was able to use scenes they weren't going to get to immediately before making back to their origin point.

Again, a Hell of a lot better than a TPK for the second session.

Of course, if I had followed the rules and not made a ruling...  :D

The thing is, I don't think people disagree with you.  

I would certainly not have them all die.  However, perhaps a difference is that I would point out that the rule was broken, and as a group we'd quickly come to consensus to change it and no longer roll for insta-death with every jump.  

Here's the thing -- I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees that the rules are what the group wants them to be, not the words on the page.  i.e. House rules, local interpretations, and so forth are fine and are part of the implicit group contract.

Quote from: One Horse Town;291957Correct.

you left off the "as always."

Quote from: RPGPundit;292078I suppose I'd agree, except that the mark of a moron is that they tend not to do so.

RPGPundit

Sorry, but I own a $1000 suit.

Quote from: jhkim;292092The thing is, I don't think people disagree with you.

*tentatively raises hand*

If the result was rolled in the open, by the players, then I personally would have a very hard time not allowing it to stand.

Quote from: The Shaman;292101*tentatively raises hand*

If the result was rolled in the open, by the players, then I personally would have a very hard time not allowing it to stand.

Same thing here.

So if the PCs make the roll to see if the entire party is wiped out as a result of a bad hyperspace jump in d20 Traveller:  instant TPK.

If the GM makes the same roll: not instant TPK.

That's dumb.

Quote from: Stuart;292106So if the PCs make the roll to see if the entire party is wiped out as a result of a bad hyperspace jump in d20 Traveller:  instant TPK.

If the GM makes the same roll: not instant TPK

That's dumb.

Do you really not understand what I meant, or are you just being a prick?

Quote from: jeff37923;291870That falls under the "don't be an asshole" clause for the GM. You can't expect the players to know what houserules exist if you don't tell them.

You're halfway there.

Yes, the first phrase is covered by the "don't be an asshole" clause. The second phrase however is an imperative to "know what you're doing".

You, as a GM, should not only be able to articulate your house rule but also articulate what exactly your house rule does.

For example, if you, as a GM, include a house rule where rolling a 1 on an d20 physical attack roll will not only result in your attack automatically failing but also inflict your character level in damage, you should be able to also tell your players straight-up that 1 in 20 attacks will not only fail but also bring the characters closer to death as well. You should also be able to articulate that full attacking is dangerous (more chances to roll 1s) and that physical attackers are a penalized character option.

Quote from: Stuart;292106So if the PCs make the roll to see if the entire party is wiped out as a result of a bad hyperspace jump in d20 Traveller:  instant TPK.

If the GM makes the same roll: not instant TPK.

That's dumb.

Nope, not automatically. The GM could interpret a total failure as something else than a TPK. The party could end up in a completely unknown part of space or right into a pirate fleet, et cetera. It could be an opportunity with the appropriate ruling. It doesn't have to be a TPK, and you don't have to act as if the roll never happened.

Quote from: The Shaman;292111Do you really not understand what I meant, or are you just being a prick?

This is how I read the discussion:

jeff37923: "Of course, if I had followed the rules and not made a ruling..."

jhkim: "The thing is, I don't think people disagree with you. "

The Shaman: "If the result was rolled in the open, by the players, then I personally would have a very hard time not allowing it to stand."

Benoist: "Same thing here."

And Benoist has been a proponent of letting the GM change rules on the fly.

That says to me that if the players had rolled in the open for an insta-TPK - it stands.  If the GM rolls in secret for an insta-TPK - it doesn't stand.

If I'm not reading that correctly, let me know what you really meant.

Nope, Stuart, that's not what I meant. See my post above.

Quote from: The Shaman;292101*tentatively raises hand*

If the result was rolled in the open, by the players, then I personally would have a very hard time not allowing it to stand.

Quote from: Benoist;292102Same thing here.

Quote from: Stuart;292106So if the PCs make the roll to see if the entire party is wiped out as a result of a bad hyperspace jump in d20 Traveller:  instant TPK.

If the GM makes the same roll: not instant TPK.

That's dumb.

Maybe I'm about to be pedantic, but oh well...

Just to get everything straight for you all. The players had made the failed skill check to precipitate the misjump roll. I openly rolled the misjump result and then declared it fudged when it looked like a TPK. I chose a different result than what the dice dictated the rules should give.

@ Benoist and The Shaman, I could have had a second session TPK due to bad dice rolling on my hands or I could have had a running game. I chose the running game as a win for everyone there.

@ Stuart, how is choosing to have a running game instead of a TPK dumb?

Quote from: luke;291849Before you play chess with someone do you hand them a piece of paper that describes how you play chess in your house?

Lots of people have house rules for chess, you'll find. For example, the en passant move is frequently disallowed because the players never heard of it. These house aren't present in official matches.

A key difference between an rpg and a game of chess is that chess is competitive. An rpg isn't. Or it may have elements of competition, but that's not the main aim of the thing. The difference is simply what people ask afterwards. If they ask, "who won?" then we know it's primarily a competitive game - chess, soccer, etc. If they ask, "what happened?" we know it's not.

Next time someone posts up their play report, ask them "who won?" and see what response you get.

A competitive game requires relatively strict rules, in order to make the game meaningful and fun - the game is about a competition. A non-competitive game can fudge the rules a lot, again to make the game fun - the game is not about competition.

For example, when a father plays chess with his young son, it becomes a non-competitive game. Dad knows he can beat Sonny, there's no fun to be had there. "Checkmate in five moves, bitch!" leads to Sonny crying and never playing chess again. So Dad plays in a way which gives Sonny a challenge, fudging the rules as needed. It's not a true competitive game anymore. But it's still a game.

When we come to an rpg session, it's less like Kasparov and Fisher staring each-other down, and more like Dad and Sonny. The GM can "beat" the players, but that would be no fun. Instead the GM adjusts the challenges and fudges the rules as necessary to make the session fun.

And again, an rpg by its nature is largely non-competitive. We're more interested in what happens than ideas of victory and defeat.

Quote from: lukeRules are rules.

Rules are rules, roses are roses, and poo is poo. Tautology is not useful to your argument.

Quote from: lukeA game is designed in a certain way to encourage certain behavior.

Indeed it is. Let's assume that the system does that well, it doesn't fuck it up and encourage something opposite. Does the group necessarily want exactly what the rules encourage? If they want something completely different, reasonably they should play a different game. But what if they want something similar, but with one or two extra elements in there? Or similar but with some missing? Well... house rules. GM rulings.

Quote from: lukeYou play a game by the rules to ensure that the game is fair and so that it produces the proper range of results.

This assumes that,   an arbitrary set of decisions made before the game session, not knowing anyone in the game group,

is better than,

an arbitrary set of decisions made during the game session, knowing the game group.
In other words, it assumes that the game designer is a better GM and knows the players better than the actual GM does. This is not self-evident, to say the least.

Quote from: lukeWhen you play board games, do you reach across the board and grab the dice away from a player when he's about to do win and say, "You do not cross GO until I say so."

And again, you're confusing competitive and non-competitive games. You're also confusing the role of GM with that of player. A player does not get to make house rules and rulings in game, the GM does.

The GM, like the wargames referee the GM evolved from in the 1970s, stands outside the game - even if the game is a competition. The wargames referee got to make decisions about the game as a whole because they had no personal stake in what was happening. The players had a stake. That is, the referee was impartial, and the players partial. Still, the players expected the rules to be followed pretty strictly, and the referee not to introduce any new and strange elements during play.
"A storm comes over the battlefield, -1 to movement."
"What?! Was there a chart for that in the rules?!"

When the wargames referee evolved into the GM, the primary change was to remove much of the competition between players. This then freed the GM to fudge the rules and introduce new elements during play. A storm coming over a battle made the battle more interesting. And that is the usually-unspoken thing between players and GM - the players say, "do what you want to us, just make it interesting."

Again, that's the nature of a non-competitive game. We're not interested in a "fair" competition, because it's not a competition.

Quote from: lukeYou go on and on about swine

Address that to Pundit. A look over my posts will find I don't speak in terms of Swine and the War and all that nonsense.

Quote from: lukeRPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.

Roleplaying games are not special, but they are in a broad class of largely non-competitive games. People enjoy this. It's why people enjoy games like Grand Theft Auto or Fallout so much - because it's not all about competition (fights, thefts, etc), but allows them to explore the game world and interact with NPCs. People enjoy non-competitive games.

Children enjoy non-competitive games, too, such as girls playing "elastics" or skipping rope. Often they take competitive games and even up the odds, making them less competitive, the small or clumsy kid gets an easy ball tossed to them in cricket or baseball, the big strong kid gets a hard ball. And in adult social sporting leagues you find the same thing - referees fudging rules and people adjusting play so that everyone gets to participate and have fun.

GMs are not just like any other player, because as I said they're impartial; or if partial, their only bias is towards the fun of the group as a whole. Players, having only one character to control, necessarily have a narrow viewpoint and will tend to take care of themselves; the GM, controlling every NPC and the whole game world, will necessarily have a broader view, and look to the fun of the group as a whole.

And that fun, as I said, while it has elements of competition ("The Combat Chapter"), is not primarily competitive.

Quote from: lukeFatbeard GMs weezing macho edicts about bizarre social dynamics that must be obeyed in their group as the cheeze-doodle crumbs fall from their encrusted hairy mouths -- that's what drives people away from this hobby. Yes Kyle, in short, people like you.

Whereas I'd say that presenting rpgs as rigidly-competitive games would drive people away from them. If "who won?" was a meaningful question after the session, far less people would be interested.

Of course, this like others' posts in this thread have the assumption that ZOMFG roleplaying is dying! which is neither relevant nor true. It's a good excuse for people claiming to revolutionise the hobby with their brilliant game design, but it's still untrue.

What it all comes down to is that you (luke) think that the game designer knows better what's fun for the group as a whole than does the GM of that group. Which is good to believe if you're a game designer, but has the problem of being utter bollocks.

You remain a cocksmock. It's probably all that time at the Forge immersed in GNS nonsense.

QuoteJust to get everything straight for you all. The players had made the failed skill check to precipitate the misjump roll. I openly rolled the misjump result and then declared it fudged when it looked like a TPK.

This is exactly what I would have done as well.  I thought you were 'fudging' the dice roll behind the screen.  Rolling in the open and then making a ruling as a group that you're going to disregard the result from a table in the book that's kinda mental -- that's something else.

My comment about it being dumb was at Benoist and Shaman saying (or what I thought they were saying) that they'd fudge the result if the GM had made it but NOT if the players had made it.

And that's not what I meant. Quoting myself:

Quote from: Benoist;292116Nope, not automatically. The GM could interpret a total failure as something else than a TPK. The party could end up in a completely unknown part of space or right into a pirate fleet, et cetera. It could be an opportunity with the appropriate ruling. It doesn't have to be a TPK, and you don't have to act as if the roll never happened.

See above.

Quote from: RPGPundit;292076I would absolutely agree, except that Luke -

You could, you know, try to be above the behaviour of some Forger moron.

Or at least if you're going to descend to their level, find smaller pictures. Maybe you've got a 24" 4,096x3,024 LCD screen in your boudoir, but most of us haven't, and sidescrolling brings back traumatic memories of playing A Bard's Tale.

I'll clarify a side issue here then. Since I define myself as a Viking Hat GM, should the random die result from either a player or myself result in a fun-ending conclusion (in accordance with my own judgement) then I reserve the right to "play dice with the universe".

Do I let the players fail? Yes, especially if I can weave the player setbacks into a greater victory for the players later (assuming that they have learned from their failures).

Do I let the players be killed if their actions (and not random chance from dice) lead them into a TPK? Yes. Evolution in action.

I believe it is in the entire game group's best interest if the GM does not fudge disasterous results of player choices (even if a TPK happens). Disasterous results of random chance are something that the GM can, and should, work with to not necessarily ensure player success but to allow the players to survive and be challenged by. Poor player choices are handled differently from poor random chance.

Poor random chance needs a rules rewrite.

Quote from: droog;292140Poor random chance needs a rules rewrite.

This. Games shouldn't contain rules / tables that can result in a random TPK.

I'm totally amused that we're on the same page on this one, Stuart.

Dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!

Quote from: jeff37923;292137I believe it is in the entire game group's best interest if the GM does not fudge disasterous results of player choices (even if a TPK happens). Disasterous results of random chance are something that the GM can, and should, work with to not necessarily ensure player success but to allow the players to survive and be challenged by.

The way I put it is to say, "random is good, random stupid is bad."

Quote from: droog;292140Poor random chance needs a rules rewrite.

Fuck, that would be a lot of rewriting.

Quote from: jeff37923;292150Fuck, that would be a lot of rewriting.

Not in any of the games I play.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;292149The way I put it is to say, "random is good, random stupid is bad."

Curse you and your fancy concise language...   ;)

Quote from: jeff37923;292152Curse you and your fancy concise language...   ;)

It's easy once someone else has come up with the actual ideas. :D

Quote from: Stuart;292125My comment about it being dumb was at Benoist and Shaman saying (or what I thought they were saying) that they'd fudge the result if the GM had made it but NOT if the players had made it.

That not what I meant.

I like to put critical rolls on the players to make. In my experience, players seem to accept bad results better if they roll them themselves than if the referee rolls them, in the open or otherwise. I've no idea why that is; it's just something I've noted over the years I've played. Maybe they feel like they had a measure of the control over the outcome up until the end. I haven't really tried to analyze the phenomenon, just observed it enough times to think it matters.

As to whether or not I would fudge the roll, probably not. If I rolled a random encounter with a monster that has a save-or-die effect and wins intitiative, I wouldn't fudge the results, either. Bad luck happens; here's a new character sheet, and better luck this time.

Quote from: jeff37923;292121@ Benoist and The Shaman, I could have had a second session TPK due to bad dice rolling on my hands or I could have had a running game. I chose the running game as a win for everyone there.

Does a TPK really mean that your entire game just ends?

The players are still there. You're still there. The game, the dice, the minis . . . all still ready to go.

The only thing needed is new characters, right? Or am I missing something?

I've only had one game actually end with a TPK, and that was because we had a different campaign we wanted to try.

Quote from: The Shaman;292155Does a TPK really mean that your entire game just ends?

I'd say a lot depends on the system being used. Basic D&D or Labyrinth Lord, you can have new PC ready in five minutes.

Quote from: The Shaman;292155The players are still there. You're still there. The game, the dice, the minis . . . all still ready to go.

The only thing needed is new characters, right? Or am I missing something?

d20 Traveller is a special case for PC creation. First, it is d20 with all the skill choices and special abilities to fill in. Second, most characters start out with a prior history that must be taken care of (the average PC is in his thirties to forties with about three to six terms of four years each of experience - which means XP which then become levels that have to be accomodated). Character creation usually takes an entire session. So most d20 Traveller players already have an investment in their PCs right out of the gate.

Quote from: jeff37923;292156So most d20 Traveller players already have an investment in their PCs right out of the gate.

That's exactly why that table needs to be revised.

Quote from: droog;292157That's exactly why that table needs to be revised.

And deprotagonise Jumpspace? NEVER!

Quote from: jeff37923;292156I'd say a lot depends on the system being used. Basic D&D or Labyrinth Lord, you can have new PC ready in five minutes.

Agreed - this is definitely one of the reasons I tend to favor games toward the rules-light end of the scale.

Quote from: jeff37923d20 Traveller is a special case for PC creation. First, it is d20 with all the skill choices and special abilities to fill in. Second, most characters start out with a prior history that must be taken care of (the average PC is in his thirties to forties with about three to six terms of four years each of experience - which means XP which then become levels that have to be accomodated). Character creation usually takes an entire session. So most d20 Traveller players already have an investment in their PCs right out of the gate.

Fair 'nuf.

Btw, this is main reason I don't care for T20.

TPK in original Traveller? We're operational again in ten minutes. :)

Quote from: droog;292157That's exactly why that table needs to be revised.

Sounds like.

Quote from: jeff37923;292159And deprotagonise Jumpspace? NEVER!

:D

Quote from: droog;292050Shit happens. Hell, in first ed. Traveller your chr could die before reaching the table. Of course, that hasn't proved a popular approach to chrgen.

Well if that's how ya wanna roll in your games then have at it. I usually like to get into at least a little bit of the action before getting wiped out, although we did get wiped out more than once.

Quote from: Stuart;292053If you can't accept the results of a dice roll, you shouldn't be rolling the dice.  Good advice for players, and doubly good for GMs who claim to be wearing a Viking helmet. ;)

If by good advice you mean meaningless and arrogant. Who are you tell the rest of us how to roll dice, or anything else for that matter? If I wanna roll dice and accept any number but the worst one, and my fellow players aren't bothered by that, what the fuck's it to you?

Quote from: jeff37923;292137I'll clarify a side issue here then. Since I define myself as a Viking Hat GM, should the random die result from either a player or myself result in a fun-ending conclusion (in accordance with my own judgement) then I reserve the right to "play dice with the universe".

Do I let the players fail? Yes, especially if I can weave the player setbacks into a greater victory for the players later (assuming that they have learned from their failures).

Do I let the players be killed if their actions (and not random chance from dice) lead them into a TPK? Yes. Evolution in action.

I believe it is in the entire game group's best interest if the GM does not fudge disasterous results of player choices (even if a TPK happens). Disasterous results of random chance are something that the GM can, and should, work with to not necessarily ensure player success but to allow the players to survive and be challenged by. Poor player choices are handled differently from poor random chance.

I agree 100%.

Quote from: Stuart;292146This. Games shouldn't contain rules / tables that can result in a random TPK.

Unless a particular group likes that kinda thing.

Quote from: The Shaman;292155Does a TPK really mean that your entire game just ends?

The players are still there. You're still there. The game, the dice, the minis . . . all still ready to go.

The only thing needed is new characters, right? Or am I missing something?

I've only had one game actually end with a TPK, and that was because we had a different campaign we wanted to try.

It can also kill the enthusiasm sometimes. It all depends on the group, and on the game, and maybe even the time of year. I've played through my fair share of tpks, and some were like "ah well, lets start that CoC game we were talking about", and some were like "Damn it, I was really looking forward to that too." One of ours was like "Ok, your new PCs come across the scene of a recent battle and you recognise the corpses as another group of adventurers that recently left town in this direction." and one was where our new PCs flashed-back to where they actually helped kill the old ones in an ambush. It all depends, like most other things.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;292131You could, you know, try to be above the behaviour of some Forger moron.

That's what they want. There are moments, you know, when trying to be all noble and say "well, I just won't sink to your level" really doesn't work, particularly when the other guy is trying to stab you in the kidneys.

RPGPundit

Just like it's bee said the DM is  God and he's the ultimate decider on what rules apply. However, it's also important  to entertain the Players and to try and make it the most stimulating game session he possibly can.

Quote from: Sigmund;292170It can also kill the enthusiasm sometimes. It all depends on the group, and on the game, and maybe even the time of year. I've played through my fair share of tpks, and some were like "ah well, lets start that CoC game we were talking about", and some were like "Damn it, I was really looking forward to that too." One of ours was like "Ok, your new PCs come across the scene of a recent battle and you recognise the corpses as another group of adventurers that recently left town in this direction." and one was where our new PCs flashed-back to where they actually helped kill the old ones in an ambush. It all depends, like most other things.

Agreed.

In thinking about this a bit more, I think one of the reasons I'm perhaps a bit less concerned about TPKs is that I don't plan involved adventure arcs for the games I run. If the characters as a group suddenly disappear from the campaign, it doesn't mean that I'm out a ton of planning effort: I can grab another encounter off the stack and the players are usually able to dive right back into the action with new characters.

Quote from: Sigmund;292164:rant:

I reckon some cow poke must've gone and plum pissed all over y'alls flap-jacks this mornin', hombre. :emot-clint:

Quote from: The Shaman;292160Agreed - this is definitely one of the reasons I tend to favor games toward the rules-light end of the scale.Fair 'nuf.

Btw, this is main reason I don't care for T20.

TPK in original Traveller? We're operational again in ten minutes. :)

Yeah, I can't argue that this aspect of T20 can be either a bug or a feature depending on the the amount of spare time you have.

Quote from: Stuart;292189I reckon some cow poke must've gone and plum pissed all over y'alls flap-jacks this mornin', hombre. :emot-clint:

No, I just get riled at self-righteousness.

Quote from: Sigmund;292199No, I just get riled at self-righteousness.

Stay off the internet then, or pay more attention to words like "advice".

The complexity of the system (i.e. how long it takes to create a character mechanically, in particular) seems to be one of the big elements playing into why people think of TPKs as naturally "Unfun". I would agree with that.

If my character dies after half an hour into a 3rd D&D game, then I'd be bummed. If I die in an OD&D/Swords & Wizardry game? Cool. Let me roll a new one, I'll be back in 5 minutes.

That's another nail in the coffin of overly complicated systems as far as I'm concerned. This is also one of the reasons why the behemoths of gaming suck for non-gamers who might have been otherwise interested in gaming and running games on their own. Three core books of 200+ pages? Half an hour at the very least to create a character? That blows.

Anyway. Yeah. TPKs can be understood and seized as opportunities in the campaign. They don't have to break the game. If of course creating new characters takes the whole game session, then... I understand why people would want to avoid it at all costs.

Quote from: Stuart;292200Stay off the internet then, or pay more attention to words like "advice".

Or, I could just point it out when I see it, and you can cowboy up and take it.

Quote from: Sigmund;292218Or, I could just point it out when I see it, and you can cowboy up and take it.

Ya reckon pardner? :emot-clint:

Quote from: Stuart;292242Ya reckon pardner? :emot-clint:

Yes, I do.

Hitler's Battletech Game Goes Awry
He puts all other tyrranical game masters to shame.

http://www.critical-hits.com/2009/03/24/youtube-tuesday-hitlers-locust-edition/

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;292124*snip extensive p4wning*

What it all comes down to is that you (luke) think that the game designer knows better what's fun for the group as a whole than does the GM of that group. Which is good to believe if you're a game designer, but has the problem of being utter bollocks.

You remain a cocksmock. It's probably all that time at the Forge immersed in GNS nonsense.

Bravo, Kyle, bravo. :hatsoff:

Quote from: droog;291795The truly excellent GM can use whatever tools are handed him.

Perhaps the truly excellent GMs remember that what was handed to them were just tools, and no more?

Quote from: Roman;292431Perhaps the truly excellent GMs remember that what was handed to them were just tools, and no more?

Different tools for different purposes. I can use a brick to hammer nails if I really have to.

Quote from: Benoist;292210If my character dies after half an hour into a 3rd D&D game, then I'd be bummed. If I die in an OD&D/Swords & Wizardry game? Cool. Let me roll a new one, I'll be back in 5 minutes.

That's the main reason why I like Arduin's HP  system. You start out with a nice amount that gradually go up little by little. It really works well.

Quote from: Imperator;291953I believe that the GM should follow the rules, and any houserules the group agrees to use. Apart from that the GM has the responsability of making judgements on situations not covered by the rules, using them as a reference, and those judgements are final.

So yes, I feel that all the players at a game (the GM being another player with different functions) must obey the same rules.

Except that the GM is assigned an asymmetrical role within the rules. Just to be clear, because I do agree.

Look, I could make a game that works like this...

Your character has a Fight score, and a Talk score. Both rated on a 1-10 scale.

You describe what your character wants to do, and the GM describes what happens as a result.

If you feel that fighting will enable you to get something you want, then instead of describing what you do, you can just say "I Fight in order to get X", and if the GM agrees that fighting can do that, you roll a d10 under your fight score to get X. If you feel that talking will get you somewhere, you can do likewise; the only difference is that the GM has to agree that talking is appropriate to the situation. Obviously, once you get X, the fact that you have X is incorporated into the reality of the game world and will affect further developments. (For example, whether you reach the top of a tower by pure description of climbing the outside, or by Talking your way past a guard at the staircase, it makes no difference in what you can see from the top.)

If you Fight or Talk and you fail, the GM is the final arbiter of the consequences. Usually the GM will describe a substantive development as a result of your failed action, but the GM might let you Fight or Talk again, however many times as seems reasonable based on accompanying narration.

It's very easy to play this game without breaking the rules; the only real hard-and-fast rule is that[I]if[/I] the GM allows you to fight or talk in pursuit of X, then
[I]if[/I] you make your roll, then
you get X
Everything else is just a matter of social agreement: the game will work if the GM narrates consequences of declared actions reasonably in the eyes of the players--including being reasonable in allowing the use of Fight and Talk.

My contention is that most RPGs will work pretty much in this fashion, at least in a formal sense. (The GM is technically the final arbiter, but social dynamics may give someone else more influence.) This makes RPGs very different from other games.

The place where many so-called Forge games differ from the paradigm outlined above is that the GM is removed from being the final arbiter. Sometimes it's claimed that no one has discretion over when a rule comes into play--but if this were really true, you'd have a board game (or maybe more precisely, something like Nomic). Instead you have a kind of exhortation to consensus-based rulings which mystifies the process through which consensus is reached. There's no real way to determine if a player's use of Fight to single-handedly defeat an army is appropriate, but the rules encourage the players to think they can attempt such a thing, and in the process, the rules either break the chain of internal logic (causality flows primarily from mechanics rather than narrative), or they force overt negotiation over the narrative. The former is the essence of "say yes"; the latter is the essence of "setting stakes".

Quote from: Stuart;292146This. Games shouldn't contain rules / tables that can result in a random TPK.

I think you should expand on this. Players shouldn't be forced to use those rules/tables without (a) knowing what they're getting into, and (b) having any interesting alternatives.

If players have a real, informed choice whether to do something that causes a risky random roll, then it's their problem if they take the roll and get a TPK. In this respect, players have a responsibility to approach the game in a way that keeps it interesting, just as much as GMs do.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;292444My contention is that most RPGs will work pretty much in this fashion, at least in a formal sense. (The GM is technically the final arbiter, but social dynamics may give someone else more influence.) This makes RPGs very different from other games.

The place where many so-called Forge games differ from the paradigm outlined above is that the GM is removed from being the final arbiter. Sometimes it's claimed that no one has discretion over when a rule comes into play--but if this were really true, you'd have a board game (or maybe more precisely, something like Nomic). Instead you have a kind of exhortation to consensus-based rulings which mystifies the process through which consensus is reached. There's no real way to determine if a player's use of Fight to single-handedly defeat an army is appropriate, but the rules encourage the players to think they can attempt such a thing, and in the process, the rules either break the chain of internal logic (causality flows primarily from mechanics rather than narrative), or they force overt negotiation over the narrative. The former is the essence of "say yes"; the latter is the essence of "setting stakes".

Hmmm... I think you make a good point there. Still, I'm not convinced that the difference you explain really makes it a non-RPG.

Quotein the process, the rules either break the chain of internal logic (causality flows primarily from mechanics rather than narrative), or they force overt negotiation over the narrative

Sounds nice, Elliot, but I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about. Specifics?

Quote from: mrk;292439That's the main reason why I like Arduin's HP  system. You start out with a nice amount that gradually go up little by little. It really works well.

This is one of the few gems that I mined from Adruin as well.  I really liked the alternate hit point system.  It's sort of a bridge between a static hit point system and a scaling hit point system.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;292445I think you should expand on this. Players shouldn't be forced to use those rules/tables without (a) knowing what they're getting into, and (b) having any interesting alternatives.

If players have a real, informed choice whether to do something that causes a risky random roll, then it's their problem if they take the roll and get a TPK. In this respect, players have a responsibility to approach the game in a way that keeps it interesting, just as much as GMs do.

Well, this is something of a question of game design.  Should the rules have bad choices included as options for the players to learn from, or should they only have good choices?  The former is usually suggested as a way of rewarding/encouraging "system mastery."  

Random death can be fun, particularly in horror or other high-fatality games.  However, everyone dying at once seems rather less so.  By design, the choices should still aim to be fun, even if they are intended as mistakes.

Quote from: Drohem;292487This is one of the few gems that I mined from Adruin as well.  I really liked the alternate hit point system.  It's sort of a bridge between a static hit point system and a scaling hit point system.

There's a lot of great nuggets in Arduin: the Cordination Factor, Mamna Points, Crit/Fumble charts,ect. I may not use much of it but it's had a big influence on me and I think it's one of the best FRP worlds ever created.

Quote from: jhkim;292499Well, this is something of a question of game design.  Should the rules have bad choices included as options for the players to learn from, or should they only have good choices?  The former is usually suggested as a way of rewarding/encouraging "system mastery."

Often suggested, these days. IMO it's narrowminded to see the inclusion of bad choices purely in this light, because it breaks things down too neatly into "tactical" vs. "non-tactical" thinking. "Bad choices" are also included for verisimilitude. Equally important, "badness" is a matter of perspective, and sometimes making a "bad" choice on purpose is a way of making a statement or blowing off steam. For example, in the dungeoncrawl I ran a while back (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=11362), the player of Umbeldore enjoyed running him as an impulsive schlemiel, walking straight into a couple of traps. Luck saved him. Of course it's even more complicated than that: had I wished, the traps could have been no-save death traps.

Or suppose the player failed a save and taken 10 points of damage. Good or bad? It depends. As you allude, having a character suffer death or injury can be fun. So it's a question of how you modulate the distribution of results. If you hard-code "no bad choices" then you eliminate the potential for some types of fun. An alternative is to pre-negotiate stakes, which I rarely enjoy. Another alternative is, shall we say, "universal discretion"--the ability of the GM to interpret any outcome, whether via a "golden rule" that allows voiding the rest of the rules in the book, or highly flexible rules. (HQ is probably in this category: you can win or lose a conflict, but what happens as a result of winning or losing is up to the GM.) I don't have a strong opinion on this style other than that it seems likely to excessively burden the GM if the players want to have a sense of danger and achievement but aren't really open to the possibility of failure.

What I prefer is a certain combination of danger, empowerment/pacing, and stiff-upper-lip. Danger: bad choices are possible. Empowerment/pacing: I get to make the choices, and things won't go bad all at once without warning. Stiff-upper-lip: if somebody screws up, then be a good sport about it and enjoy the verisimilitude that comes from knowing that your actions have real consequences.

I was kinda of hoping you would go into specifics as droog requested, Elliot. (I still don't get what you're were trying to say, in your last post)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Imperator;292448Hmmm... I think you make a good point there. Still, I'm not convinced that the difference you explain really makes it a non-RPG.

I'd say that if you sew up everything in formal mechanics, it really does become a non-RPG. In practice I haven't seen this extreme in spite of the pro- and con- rhetoric that comes from some quarters. Some games I've seen tagged this way: My Life With Master, the Shab al-Hiri Roach, Burning Empires. BE I've never read. MLwM and Roach still depend on judgment calls. But if you swallow the rhetoric and pretend that you can "say yes or roll the dice" to every goofy player idea, or that pre-negotiated stakes are the way to go...without first having the social foundation that applies to every RPG, then you end up with a lame game.

Quote from: David R;292569I was kinda of hoping you would go into specifics as droog requested, Elliot. (I still don't get what you're were trying to say, in your last post).

If you don't have a good group to begin with, then empowering a player to narrate elements of the game world without being limited by anything other than mechanics is just going to annoy or bore the other players.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;292570But if you swallow the rhetoric and pretend that you can "say yes or roll the dice" to every goofy player idea, or that pre-negotiated stakes are the way to go...without first having the social foundation that applies to every RPG, then you end up with a lame game.

What rhetoric? And what play experience lies behind this judgement?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;292571If you don't have a good group to begin with, then empowering a player to narrate elements of the game world without being limited by anything other than mechanics is just going to annoy or bore the other players.

And if you don't have a good group to begin with, then empowering a particular player to narrate elements of the game world without being limited by anything is just going to annoy or bore the other players.

Well I have no idea what "good group" means. It seems to me that narrating elements of the game world (with/out) mechanics is about preference and I'll also add, could be used as a technique in a variety of games regardless of system. Hmm (tangential), but I've heard the same thing being said about "personality mechanics" and the way it inhibits players from developing their characters.

Regards,
David R

The GM is the ultimate arbiter.

- Ed Charlton

Quote from: David R;292576Well I have no idea what "good group" means.

A good group is one where everyone tries to put a lot into the game session, and helps make others eager to put in, too.

And where everyone brings snacks and shares them.

Quote from: David R;292576Well I have no idea what "good group" means.

A good group is one where people are on the same wavelength both socially and in terms of their broad understanding of the fiction. Also in what might be thought of as the intersection of the two, they're on the same wavelength about who understands what in the fiction. (E.g., if the players are digging learning about the weird cultural practices of a world, they'll be compatible with a GM who has a strong vision. If the players want to make up the world themselves, or they just want to take a bunch of standard sf/f tropes as a basis for fighting critters, they're not going to get along well with the GM. (I'll bet you can relate this to Jorune.)

QuoteIt seems to me that narrating elements of the game world (with/out) mechanics is about preference and I'll also add, could be used as a technique in a variety of games regardless of system.

If you don't have a good group, then mechanics aren't going to make things work. A good group has a common sense of responsibility to the fiction. If you don't have that, then it does no good to pretend that mechanical constraint/empowerment, or mechanical arbitration, will achieve anything.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;292612A good group is one where people are on the same wavelength...

Exactly, so it is about preference, right? If you're going to go with Forgey type mechanics, you better be sure, that the whole group, is on board with this. I guess I misread your  "If you don't have a good group to begin with,...", which I took to mean something else entirely. My bad.

QuoteIf you don't have a good group, then mechanics aren't going to make things work.

Well, duh...Elliot :D

Regards,
David R

To me it's obviously the system.  But plenty of groups are going to make house rules and I would make games and give GMing advice to encourage that.

The DM is technically two positions. One, he's a referee applying the players' words and actions to the rules of the game. And two, he's an Auxiliary (or auxiliary ego)acting out the pre-scripted characterizations the NPCs.

These two roles do not need to go together, a DM could recruit others to strictly run NPCs for instance, but neither can be players in the game either.  

I suppose, after an NPC is dead or gone and the scripting no longer pertinent to the game a person who was solely an Auxiliary could be a Player/Protagonist too.  

Plus, most players are intelligent and won't metagame anyways, if you let them join in with a PC.  Most RPGs require Players not to metagame OOC knowledge at some point.  But it is a challenge and not fun for anyone to really be put in a position to cheat like that.  So I prefer using cards or running out of contact from the rest of the group, if things are really important.  

It's a group preference really.  And definitely a call made on a case by case basis.  My advice is just always ask the player if it's okay to be open with information or not.  Or in the NPC case, whether they'd feel uncomfortable knowing what they know about the NPC while playing a PC.

I'm definitely in the GM over rules, understanding I mean 'rulings' camp, both as GM and player.

I prefer it when rulings are more persistent, of course, a GM handing down the law and changing their mind when it is convenient gets old quick.

I often find that I have to draw a line in the sand for many modern game systems at some point - the steamroller of creeping supplement-itis means that later additions to rulesets invariably have shoddy editing and rarely fit within a reasonable take on the initial setting.

I usually set out a 'house rules' document that includes rulings from earlier campaigns that helps have a good starting point and is a place for refinements to live where I won't forget them, when I'm running a game.  At least I hope I do.

For all that, I tend to end up taking my time to adopt new versions of games, they rarely add anything I haven't already dealt with, so... no hurry.

Welcome to the rpgsite Tamelorn.

Regards,
David R

For me, the GM is the ultimate arbiter most of the time, but a GM who's at odds with all his players more than occasionally soon finds a lack of players.

Quote from: David R;307364Welcome to the rpgsite Tamelorn.

Regards,
David R

Thanks!  Sorry for the necropost, but three months old isn't THAT bad, eh?

Bow down before Geezer, puny rules!

Quote from: Old Geezer;307387Bow down before Geezer, puny rules!

Zod Geezer?

:D

GMs before rules for me.

I guess someone's already said "Neither, the group is the ultimate arbiter"? I've yet to see dumb-ass rules or dumb-ass GM decisions pass by a group of attentive players unmocked. No amount of "I am da law!" shouting is going to get around a bunch of players tossing peanuts at you; no one's going to break down the door and confiscate your books if the group decides "we hate that rule".

I also have a $1000 dollar suit (£500, but you know) and shiny shoes. My arguments are thus unassailable!

Ned

Given that I prefer to treat the rules-set as in-game physics, I prefer to treat the rules as the final arbiter.

That said, though, I also believe that the GM needs to keep an eye out for game mechanics that are disruptive to play and rectify them. So while the system is the final arbiter, the GM has some veto power.

There's no such thing as "the group".  If there's any real moment when all the players agree without coersion or manipulation on something that the GM does not, then in all likelihood the GM is an ass and everyone should have stopped playing with him long ago, or possibly the group is full of idiots and the GM should find better players.

But in reality, it never works out like that. In reality, "the group should make the decision" is the clarion-call of domineering primma-donna players wanting to bully around other players into forcing the GM to follow his agenda so he gets to be the special star of the show.

RPGPundit

I am da law! Lookit mah suit!

Ned

Quote from: RPGPundit;307495But in reality, it never works out like that. In reality, "the group should make the decision" is the clarion-call of domineering primma-donna players wanting to bully around other players into forcing the GM to follow his agenda so he gets to be the special star of the show.

Pretty much. My players want the GM to have absolute authority over the game for two reasons:

A) I'm a good GM and our games work.
B) They trust me more than they trust each other to ensure the game runs smoothly and fairly. The last player to join our group who started frequently interrupting the game to question my judgement found himself opposed by all of the other players. I didn't have to impose my authority - my players stepped in and did it themselves. The message was that if you don't like my rulings and approach to the game, you don't have to play.

Quote from: RPGPundit;307495There's no such thing as "the group".  If there's any real moment when all the players agree without coersion or manipulation on something that the GM does not, then in all likelihood the GM is an ass and everyone should have stopped playing with him long ago, or possibly the group is full of idiots and the GM should find better players.

But in reality, it never works out like that. In reality, "the group should make the decision" is the clarion-call of domineering primma-donna players wanting to bully around other players into forcing the GM to follow his agenda so he gets to be the special star of the show.

RPGPundit

Not always. I often put questionable rules issues to vote. I always put house rules to vote.

Quote from: RPGPundit;307495There's no such thing as "the group".  If there's any real moment when all the players agree without coersion or manipulation on something that the GM does not, then in all likelihood the GM is an ass and everyone should have stopped playing with him long ago, or possibly the group is full of idiots and the GM should find better players.

But in reality, it never works out like that. In reality, "the group should make the decision" is the clarion-call of domineering primma-donna players wanting to bully around other players into forcing the GM to follow his agenda so he gets to be the special star of the show.

RPGPundit

You are wrong Moff Pundit.

Regards,
David R

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, just a right or wrong answer for a particular group.

Personally, as a GM and as a player, I like GMs who basically stick to the rules.

Seanchai