Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Thasmodious]

The point of this thread is quite simple:

I'm saying that I think the game is 10 times more interesting when action is focussed on what the players DO as opposed to what they ROLL.

You kind of keep moving the point of the thread, from trusting to the DM, to the DM is the rulebook, to now the old argument of player skill versus character skill. But I'll bite on this point.

The single thing I hated most about early edition play was sitting around a table for an hour while describing all the different things we did to a magic ring to try and figure out what it did or all the different ways we searched a room or all the thing we did to try and find or disarm a trap. It was a huge time sink with very little reward. "Whew, it only took us 3 hours to play it out, but I finally figured out this dagger has a slightly magically increased chance to hit! What was that Mr. DM, during the 37 turns of game time I used up in my attempts, the dragon ate the princess?"

I, Thasmodious the player, am not a highly skilled thief in a world where magic exists. My character is. I, Thasmodious the player, have no idea all the steps I would need to take to disarm an animated clockwork poison spore trap embedded in a treasure chest. My character does. If the DM wishes to detail what my highly skilled thief has to particularly do to disarm said trap, that is great. If he wants to design a whole skill challenge around it and make it tense, scary and exciting, while that's even better. But the game is not best served by me sitting there for an hour trying variations of "I poke it with a stick" and "I'll poke it with one of the tools from my thieves kit, does that work?"

 

[RainOfSteel]

Then you don't understand the point of this thread, either.

I do. The author of the linked material wants people to accept arbitrariness based upon the hope that it will be justly applied. That is ridiculous.

You've got to play with a GM that you know will treat you fairly and won't be subject to favoritisim.

There is no such thing.

(I can't figure how playing with a GM under any style of play can be fun and good if your GM is playing favorites.)

Game rules exist to help prevent this situation.

Good lord! You'll never trust your GM!

Not if I am expected to accept continuing arbitrariness that is almost guaranteed to be inconsistent.

In old-school gaming, you accepted this sort of treatment, which did exist quite widely, and you dealt with it, or you didn't play.

In modern gaming, additional (but not infinite) rules help both players and GMs resolve situations more fairly and with consistency. This decreases conflicts and increases harmony. I will take a harmonious game that is going well over a conflicted game than is riding atop the clouds of greatness (that is to say, where game play is great, but social interaction between the players is strained).

I think that's more your problem based on this statement.

It isn't a problem at all. I accept reality and deal with it.

Good gosh, brother, who are you playing with?

Ordinary gamers for 31 years now. Geeks and nerds, all of them.

My group isn't any of those things.

I wouldn't characterize us with any of the terms you use.

There are no geeks and nerds in your groups and all the members interact together seamlessly and well on a social level? I've never seen or heard of such a thing in RPGs (or MMORPGs), but I will take your word for it that your group has achieved gamer Nirvana. I have to say: congratulations! (No, I am not being sarcastic. My statement is genuine. Heck, I'm jealous.)

-----------------------------

I don't think you're getting the point at all.

That confirms it. You really don't get it.

But, that's OK. You don't have to. Nobody's trying to force you to get it.

There are four pages in this thread where I've commented on that document several times.

You're asking me to repeat myself again?

You're not being asked to repeat yourself. You are discovering that large numbers disagree with the linked material, and when given the reasons for why, your response has been:

1 -- "My gamer group is happy with the necessary requirements to achieve the state of gaming described in the linked material," with the apparent assumption that other gamers will also be happy with those requirements.

2 -- "You don't get it." Yes, we get it. You're just running into people who disagree with it and who are telling you why in a way that basically states, "That will never work for us." There really isn't a response you can come up with for that and, "You don't get it," as has already been noted, can be turned back on you, and that leads nowhere.

------------------------

[..] this is more a matter of game style than rules system,

You're right, it is.

I've tried to introduce the option for players to take improvisational actions with variable bonuses and damage, sort of like "stunt powers," but they rarely take up on it.

I ran Exalted for a while, and despite mentioning it several times, almost no one used Stunts, a built-in part of the game. You get extra dice just by putting some extra description into what you're doing, and they didn't do it.

As one gamer friend of mine pointed out to me, "I work 60+ hours a week and I am exhausted by every Friday. I come here on Saturday, half-braindead, to have a little fun by running my character around, getting into some fights, and using some powers. It's hard enough to remember the major plot points of the campaign, much less every mechanics corner of the scores of RPGs I have ever played. Sorry about that." Not everyone is sufficiently energetic or relentless in power gaming to exploit every available option, no matter how easily obtained.

Every member of that group had at least a 40 hour a week job (including me), often more, and often with irregular hours or odd shifts. Some of them stumbled into the game on Saturday, bleary-eyed from lack of sleep, so it was understandable and I didn't beat up anyone for being hours late, no matter how annoying. The hosts of the game sometimes were not available and this caused skip weeks, and this really stretched out people's ability to get back in-game when we next met.

I consider these types of issues, and similar variants, to be common. If you are out there and you have an absolutely perfect gaming group, where everyone gets along, is always present, is bright-eyed and totally enthusiastic, who remember every aspect of what has happened in every game session, and who thoroughly understand the rules (or lack of rules), you need to consider yourself lucky.

 

[Water Bob]

You kind of keep moving the point of the thread, from trusting to the DM, to the DM is the rulebook, to now the old argument of player skill versus character skill.

No, those are all expressions of the same point.

The DM is the rulebook.

And because the DM is the rulebook, players have to trust him.

Why do they have to trust him? Because he'll make arbitrary calls, and it's up to the player to accept these calls even though the DM made it up. It's not in the printed rulebook. It came from THE rulebook, the DM.

And, why is the DM making arbitrary calls? Because you're not just throwing dice, speaking a total, and moving on. You're not more involved with the game and have to use your player skill to get past obstacles instead of just rolling dice and moving on.*

It's all the same thing. You either "get it", or you don't.




*And...yes, you still roll dice. Or, the DM does. Somebody does.

 

[The Shaman]

There is no such thing.

I'm in no position to question your personal experiences as a gamer.

I will say, however, that your experiences are very, very different from mine.

 

[pawsplay]

No, those are all expressions of the same point.

The DM is the rulebook.

And because the DM is the rulebook, players have to trust him.

Why do they have to trust him? Because he'll make arbitrary calls, and it's up to the player to accept these calls even though the DM made it up. It's not in the printed rulebook. It came from THE rulebook, the DM.

And, why is the DM making arbitrary calls?

The implication is that since we MUST trust the DM, that all DMs are equally good. All are trustworthy, and to benefit from their DMing, we must trust them.

What is the purpose of this trust? To what end does the DM put it, apart from the same ends as would be served by a satisfactory resolution within the rules?

 

[nedjer]

I do. The author of the linked material wants people to accept arbitrariness based upon the hope that it will be justly applied. That is ridiculous.

Codswallop dude! All those rules were created by an arbitrary brain in the first place and the case you're making is that a set of arbitrary thoughts written down is in some way different from another set of arbitrary thoughts not written down.

Oddly enough, both the designers of these rules and those arbitrary GMs invariably decide to get arbitrary and not write out a set of rules for PCs who need to cut their toenails.

You're simply dressing up extreme rules lawyering and tired simulationist thinking in a not so new set of clothes and arguing for the removal of the thought, negotiation, interpretation and collaboration that makes RPGs different from playing cricket or darts.

You're also bloody rude dude

 

[nedjer]

The implication is that since we MUST trust the DM, that all DMs are equally good. All are trustworthy, and to benefit from their DMing, we must trust them.

What is the purpose of this trust? To what end does the DM put it, apart from the same ends as would be served by a satisfactory resolution within the rules?

The implication is that the GM is mature enough for players to place trust in the GM. A GM is the balance, not one of the weights.

 

[chaochou]

If this is true, then you play with players who do not trust the GM. Bottom line is that players have to accept the GM's call as final.

But, if the GM doesn't agree with the player, the players have to accept that, right or wrong in their opinion, the GM's word is law. Let's move on.

No, let's not move on. One of the repeated themes of this thread is your desire to express your preferences for a game as universal truths for everyone. The Jester warned as much a few pages ago - kudos to him for his prescience.

Bottom line is the players don't have to accept the GMs call as final. I haven't GMd like that in 25 years. And I've played in maybe 2 games in that time where it was true. And those 2 games sucked.

If you want to portray absolute authority as a trust issue, then fine. But I don't think you understand the implications of doing so. Because if me not granting a GM absolute control represents me not trusting him - then a GM who seeks absolute authority is one who doesn't trust me, or any of his players.

I think your trust argument is specious. But if you're going to make it one way, it's going to come back at you the other.

This thread isn't about what rules set you play. If you "get it", then you know its about getting back to how the game was usually played back in the old days when players didn't know what to roll to disable traps.

Ahh. That would be the 'old days' before AD&D (Find/Remove Traps) or Runequest (Spot/Disarm Trap). Maybe you were a big T&T player.

And usually played? You're now an authority on everyone's gaming sessions in 1981? Bold claim.

One of the points of the article--the one that I'm keying in on--is that new editions of D&D and a lot of other games are rules heavy with a rule for everything.

Hell yeah. It's not like AD&D had a table for how much damage I take from my armour when I change into wereform or anything. I mean, that would be ridiculous.

ALL OF THAT IS MOUNTAINS MORE INTERESTING...

Interesting is your value judgement. What I find interesting in a game is not what you do. It's not that I 'Don't get it'. I get it completely. I, and the people I game with, much prefer something else.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm in no position to question your personal experiences as a gamer.

I will say, however, that your experiences are very, very different from mine.

I have to say my experience with GMs has generally been positive (particularly when I think back on the total experience over time). Obviously no GM is perfect (just like no referee in a sport is perfect); for me the key trait of a good GM is reasonableness. If the GM makes a questionable call, that isn't a big deal. It is a subjective thing. A reasonable GM is open to the possibility that the call was bad when the issue is raised (and for the most part, my GMs have been this way).

I think there are advantages to both approaches here. One assures consistency of play and expectations. Which can be a good thing. The other allows for an openness and fluidity of play, that can be very rewarding as well.

If you are going to take the old school approach, one way to avoid some of the pitfalls people have been describing, is to offer a rubric before hand so there are no misunderstandings.

 

[nedjer]

No, let's not move on. One of the repeated themes of this thread is your desire to express your preferences for a game as universal truths for everyone. The Jester warned as much a few pages ago - kudos to him for his prescience.

Bottom line is the players don't have to accept the GMs call as final. I haven't GMd like that in 25 years. And I've played in maybe 2 games in that time where it was true. And those 2 games sucked.

If you want to portray absolute authority as a trust issue, then fine. But I don't think you understand the implications of doing so. Because if me not trusting a GM with absolute control represents me not trusting him - then a GM who seeks absolute authority is one who doesn't trust me, or any of his players.

I think your trust argument is specious. But if you're going to make it one way, it's going to come back at you the other.



Ahh. That would be the 'old days' before AD&D (Find/Remove Traps) or Runequest (Spot/Disarm Trap). Maybe you were a big T&T player.

And usually played? You're now an authority on everyone's gaming sessions in 1981? Bold claim.



Hell yeah. It's not like AD&D had a table for how much damage I take from my armour when I change into wereform or anything. I mean, that would be ridiculous.



Interesting is your value judgement. What I find interesting in a game is not what you do. It's not that I 'Don't get it'. I get it completely. I, and the people I game with, much prefer something else.

Don't you find it a tad contradictory to insist that we must stick to the designer's letter of the law while arguing that we mustn't stick to other laws, e.g. consensus around the table?

In addition, you're commenting without regard to or respect for the intention of 'the designer'. You may choose to assume that an RPG designer wants or expects you to stick rigidly to the rules as set out. Mike Mearls - I think it was - (post The Weem pointed us to) recently stated quite clearly that he'd like to look at faster combat in 4e amongst other rule changes.

Does that not make the original designer guilty of Water Bob's heinous crimes. It gets worse, as an RPG designer and concept artist I deliberately leave meanings and interpretation open to the GM, player, viewer. This is the only way to make RPGs which are RPGs or art that's art; otherwise it's just another set of boardgame rules or reproductive art with fixed inputs and rigid outcomes?