Which sounds very FORGE-y, and I at least partially disagree. Despite the coolness and utility of talking about styles of play, the truth is that real table circa 1982 were in no way cleanly divisible into classical and trad. As late as 1996, I was still playing at tables that managed to do Trad with AD&D rulesets simply by managing the challenge levels so that death was low risk and character continuity existed over years of real time play. And as a clear proof that Trad wasn't as clear cut of a thing as claimed, defining Trad modules like I6 Ravenloft are arguably in practice more lethal than S1 Tomb of Horrors, because as I've pointed out elsewhere I6 is for characters level 5-6 and Stradh is a highly proactive Level X monster - a monster they are forced to deal with in the worst possible circumstances 2-3 levels before the 8th level that is the lowest recommended level for meeting such a formidable foe. I6 is a meat grinder of a module played as written.
Let’s not get hung up on jargon. I referenced that article because it got a positive response here and provides a set of definitions that I could use to clarify my point. I’ve run into those players, and I’m sure others here have as well. In my case, the player had very different expectations for what the game was about and how the GM should operate. I thought he would have fun anyway, but I was proven wrong when he rage quit after his character died. He claimed he’d done nothing wrong (and presumably his character should not have died), but it happens in my game, and it did.
Which again, sounds real FORGE-y. So I'm going to counter with Celebrim's second law of RPGs: how you think about playing and how you prepare to play a game has a bigger influence over the process of play than the rules do.
How I play is going to vary highly depending on the game. I’m not going to approach Pathfinder 2e the same way I would Call of Cthluhu or Scum and Villainy or Torchbearer or even Konosuba TRPG (just running down various games I’ve played in the last few years). They all do different things, and their rules all specify who gets to say what and what they can say in different ways. Konosuba has the GM get XP! If you want to do a game with rotating GMs, it sets you up better than other ones I listed which have no rules for that. Anyway, while I did have Edwards’s article in mind, I also meant the plain meaning of the phrase “system matters”.
I'm very skeptical of claims that a game system can prep you to run games particularly well except by providing very good examples of play, and I've noted in the past that there is this big disconnect in modern games that think that they are rendering GM duties low skill in that they often don't in fact provide really good examples of play (the way a 1st edition AD&D published module arguably does, or the way Gygax's examples of play in the 1e DMG really hone in on the game that he expects to see, rules or not) and as such I am really skeptical of those claims. I'm not saying that for example everything FATE or PbtA games present is bad, but I am not sure that it accomplishes what they think it does.
I think a newer player would have an easier time running a system that says, “follow these rules and do X, Y, and Z,” then one where it gives them a ton of flexibility without a lot of guidelines on using it. It may not be great, but I expect there will be fewer pathologies than if they were left on their own. If they happen to pick a game where the GM doesn’t even get to roll dice, then they can’t even fudge!
With that said, I agree regarding examples. The only thing worse than no examples are bad ones. I was really disappointed when I first tried to run Worlds Without Number to find that not only did its surprise rules make no sense but that there were no examples of how to make sense of them. (You make a group check, but group checks are only implied by other parts of the system.)
No, no, it's the intent and it is I think constructive. While I was quibbling with the OP that said fudging is proof of a bad GM by suggesting that good GMs will find good reasons to fudge on occasion, I don't disagree that fudging is a sign of poor skill and I do equate poor skill with being a bad GM. That is to say that I think playing RPGs is a hobby like dancing, running, skydiving, painting or whatever and that some people are good at it and some people are not, and that you have to work and ought to want to work at getting good at your hobby. And I think overcoming the idea that you don't need to put in that effort is a very constructive thing.
Ah, well then. What you say makes sense, but I don’t think we agree when it comes to intentionality. Would it be fair to say that you don’t see a place for intentionally fudging at the table?
The thing is that rule smithing is itself a very high skill endeavor and there are plenty of even very good GMs that don't have a high degree of rules smithing in their tool box. Not everyone can successfully fix a system with rules.
I don’t think that really stops people from creating house rules anyway, but I only mentioned it as an option because I figured it would be too contentious only to suggest playing a different game instead.
So again, I'm really skeptical of this as a solution to the problem you are trying to solve. Do you remember the pilot to Deep Space 9, where they discovered these extra-dimensional beings that existed outside of time and they were trying to explain human existence to them. And the extra-dimensional beings couldn't understand baseball. And Captain Sisko uses baseball to prove that human life is like he says it is, because he says baseball is fun because it is linear, and because humans live in linear time they don't know what will happen. Humans then find themselves in a space where they are exploring the possibilities linear time, and it's because you are always discovering new things. Sports are fun and exciting because they create these interesting narratives for the audience to follow and experience along with the players. Almost all sports are watched live precisely because of this. If you know what's going to happen, the narrative isn't powerful and isn't dramatic. And I think that's the heart of your misunderstanding of how to create dramatic moments. Because if you effectively tell the group, "On round 5 you are going to beat the BBEG" it totally changes the dynamic. Not only are you going to create metagaming issues in that you are now rewarded for prioritizing defence over offense, but you've also lost the opportunity from drama. There are GMs that do this thing, but critically they hide from the PCs that they are doing it as if it was a secret of the greatest importance, because it is. Once the secret is revealed, the joy is lost.
So many well intentioned games are too busy trying to create the transcript of drama rather than the experience of drama.
It’s not a style of game I like to do, but I mention it because I’ve seen it suggested by those who dod. Another one is requiring player permission to kill a PC. I’ve seen that one too. Again, not my thing either.
The kind of game I run is an exploration-focused sandbox game using a homebrew system based on Moldvay Basic. There are a number of changes. One thing in particular is I never get to roll the dice (outside of combat and event rolls). We only roll when the players establish stakes that matter. Like I said above, if you don’t roll dice, you can’t fudge (not that I’m particularly inclined anyway).
