Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9595304" data-attributes="member: 4937">No amount of rules can stop a GM from being bad, but one of the two most important ways a well-intentioned GM can limit his ability to achieve his own preferences is adherence to the rules.&nbsp; Without adherence to the rules, even a well-intentioned GM is likely simply prioritizing his own preferences for how he thinks the story should go over any other outcome.&nbsp; I realize that there are GMs on the board who will happily claim that good GMs do in fact make games come out how they want as a theory of gaming - the GM always knows better than the dice or the rules - but then that makes a virtue out of being capricious and following the GM's whim.Rules lawyering is just a specific example of a general process of metagaming where a player attempts to get what they want by wheedling and brow beating the GM into agreement.&nbsp; This process of play where some non-play out of game activity is primarily how things are resolved is not at all limited to rules-heavy games and is indeed IMO worse in rules light games that heavily depend on GM whim and fiat decisions.&nbsp; Since the referee in such games is so powerful, then the process of play often comes down to manipulating the GM in some fashion if you want to get what you want.&nbsp; You either &quot;rizz&quot; the GM into giving you what you want because he thinks it is cool, or else you browbeat and negotiate with the GM until they give up and give you what you want.&nbsp; A non-RPG example would be the sport of soccer which is historically rules light in its laws governing the game with a very powerful referee that was historically not subject to review and with broad latitude in interpreting the law, with the result that a very large part of the game at the highest levels is flopping and browbeating the referee in attempts to influence their decisions through trickery or rhetoric.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9595304, member: 4937"] No amount of rules can stop a GM from being bad, but one of the two most important ways a well-intentioned GM can limit his ability to achieve his own preferences is adherence to the rules. Without adherence to the rules, even a well-intentioned GM is likely simply prioritizing his own preferences for how he thinks the story should go over any other outcome. I realize that there are GMs on the board who will happily claim that good GMs do in fact make games come out how they want as a theory of gaming - the GM always knows better than the dice or the rules - but then that makes a virtue out of being capricious and following the GM's whim. Rules lawyering is just a specific example of a general process of metagaming where a player attempts to get what they want by wheedling and brow beating the GM into agreement. This process of play where some non-play out of game activity is primarily how things are resolved is not at all limited to rules-heavy games and is indeed IMO worse in rules light games that heavily depend on GM whim and fiat decisions. Since the referee in such games is so powerful, then the process of play often comes down to manipulating the GM in some fashion if you want to get what you want. You either "rizz" the GM into giving you what you want because he thinks it is cool, or else you browbeat and negotiate with the GM until they give up and give you what you want. A non-RPG example would be the sport of soccer which is historically rules light in its laws governing the game with a very powerful referee that was historically not subject to review and with broad latitude in interpreting the law, with the result that a very large part of the game at the highest levels is flopping and browbeating the referee in attempts to influence their decisions through trickery or rhetoric. [/QUOTE]

Verification