System matters and free kriegsspiel

[S'mon]

Of course, even "roll the dice" requires some sort of intervention to establish probability; its just not a deterministic pass/fail.

When the outcome seems in question, defaulting to 50-50 does work pretty well.

 

[S'mon]

After over 200 players playing at my table, I do expect about 1 in ten players to cheat if they think they can get away with it; usually lying about dice rolls.
I expect another 1 in ten to be unable to function reliably in a rules context.
And about 1 in ten who will not abide genre restrictions.
About 1 in 20 will ignore the comfort of others at the table.
So, I generally don't trust players at start. If they turn out to not be one of those roughly 20 of 100... (there are strong overlaps), sure... they earn that trust. It's not been automatic in 20+ years for me. About 80% hit that.

Yes. It does not seem wildly implausible to suggest that 80% of players are basically trustworthy. IME for GMs it might be higher, but again not implausible to suggest that around 20% of the time a GM will do something at least one player feels is violating the perceived social contract. The GM I played Savage Worlds with, he applied the rules system fairly*, but he tended to ignore my female PC, which I started to suspect was because he didn't much like a male player playing a female PC. Or the 4e GM who fudged wildly to keep the PCs alive in his ridiculously OTT encounters, also lost some trust.

If there are 4-5 players at the table and 1 GM, it's far more likely that at least 1 player is not trustworthy. So it can be rational to - by default - not fully trusting players, while trusting the GM until proven otherwise. And since the game likely needs player trust in the GM to function, it's also necessary to play at all.

Edit: I pretty much trust all my current players, but they're a curated bunch. I stopped playing with the ones I didn't trust! When you run a lot of public open-access games, I think you do get a roughly 80-20 ratio. Although it seems to vary a bit by rules system. When I switched from 3e to 4e, there suddenly seemed to be far less player bad behaviour. 5e seems good for engendering good behaviour too. Something about 3e (& PF) seems to bring out the worst in some people. :/ I had a bit of a bad experience running a BECMI/Classic campaign too, but that was just one couple so not a meaningful data point.

*Actually, I recall him ignoring my female diplomancer PC's attempt to dissuade the biker gang from capturing the PCs, while letting the rather munchkiny male fighter PC's attempt succeed. I had built the PC for exactly this kind of situation, even knowing it likely wouldn't come up much in a zombie apocalypse game, so I was pretty p*ssed off.

 

[pemerton]

Something about 3e (& PF) seems to bring out the worst in some people.

Hmmmm.

 

[Numidius]

I think the language of need, of what is essential is not really all that useful in terms of roleplaying game design. It implies there is only one right answer, instead of many depending on what your group is looking for. I think it's a lot more useful to consider what the game is contributing based on the needs of the specific group.
(...)
Each game provides something different, focuses on different salient details about the fiction. I would gladly play any with the right group. I think there are a lot of cases where specificity is helpful, especially games that are essentially defining a genre of play unto themselves. Games where the source material is the game. Games like Legend of the 5 Rings, Exalted, Vampire - The Masquerade, and Pathfinder Second Edition are specific because they are defining a genre for us all to experience. That has real value.
(...)
In both games as presented there is a tremendous amount of GM judgement required. Like pretty much every second of play involves judgement calls.

This, I agree with, even if I'd look at it from an FKR perspective.
I could use your exact words to pitch an FKR game to people.
I probably will

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not if if it's 2d6 vs 2d6, or some other coin-toss mechanic.

Well, its true there too, but only once (when its established that's how it'll be done going forward). Same as if you use a fixed target number like 7, say.

 

[Thomas Shey]

When the outcome seems in question, defaulting to 50-50 does work pretty well.

Well, its certainly functional as a default depending on the effect one generally is trying for.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes. It does not seem wildly implausible to suggest that 80% of players are basically trustworthy. IME for GMs it might be higher,

Is there a particular reason to assume this? It seems based in some unstated prior assumption.

but again not implausible to suggest that around 20% of the time a GM will do something at least one player feels is violating the perceived social contract. The GM I played Savage Worlds with, he applied the rules system fairly*, but he tended to ignore my female PC, which I started to suspect was because he didn't much like a male player playing a female PC. Or the 4e GM who fudged wildly to keep the PCs alive in his ridiculously OTT encounters, also lost some trust.

If there are 4-5 players at the table and 1 GM, it's far more likely that at least 1 player is not trustworthy. So it can be rational to - by default - not fully trusting players, while trusting the GM until proven otherwise. And since the game likely needs player trust in the GM to function, it's also necessary to play at all.

Though note my distinction. I wouldn't play with a GM who's motives I questioned, but I've done so with ones who's judgment I didn't completely trust on a consistent basis (in fact, I take that as pretty much a given).

 

[S'mon]

Is there a particular reason to assume this?

That the 80-20 rule applies? Only that it seems to fit my experience with open games, which is extensive.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That the 80-20 rule applies? Only that it seems to fit my experience with open games, which is extensive.

I suspect that's because you haven't been exposed to environments where there's a sharply limited amount of GMs, and as such, the ones present can get away with things that wouldn't fly where its easier to shop for a better GM.

 

[overgeeked]

I suspect that's because you haven't been exposed to environments where there's a sharply limited amount of GMs, and as such, the ones present can get away with things that wouldn't fly where its easier to shop for a better GM.

Or run in an environment where it's easier to shop for better players.