The Player vs DM attitude

[LostSoul]

The ANTITHESIS of this approach is to treat NPCs as tools of the movie director to move the action along, rather than characters in their own right. If the NPC barber in the Western suddenly turns into a psychopath who wants to cut the PC's throat -- even though he was a normal person with no warning signs or previous incidents -- just because the DM decides it's time for a fight, then you're going to get paranoid players.

I just want to point out that this sucks in movies and literature as well.

Even if you're running a narrativist game (that is, you are focusing on the player's decisions that relate to problematic features of human nature), you want to make sure that your NPCs are good simulations of regular people.

I think that narrativism falls apart when the game world is not real enough.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I agree with the first sentence. I don't see quite how it connects to the second - one part of the 4e rules is its encounter building guidelines, and they definitely serve the game. Using the guidelines for combat encounters, I can play my monsters to the best of my tactical ability and be pretty confident of getting a solid (if hack) fantasy adventure rather than a TPK, a walkover, a grind, etc - all things that I've experienced using other systems that have less solid guidelines.

In your particular case the rules serve the game quite well. Your goal seems to include balanced exciting combats and the rules help you to achieve that.

These same rules do not serve my game as well. If the PC's are exploring a wilderness of hills and mountains then they may run into the hill and stone giants that inhabit the area. It doesn't matter if they happen to be 1st or 30th level at the time. If the PC's do happen to be low level then choosing combat would be a poor choice.

I find the fantasy world to be a more satisfying construction when it doesn't level in lockstep with the PC's.

The skill challenge guidelines, I'll grant you, are a bit more shaky. But they still help me put boundaries around encounters - especially social encounters, but also overland travel and strange magical phenomena - in a way that I feel works better than have more open-ended traditional approaches.

I'm happy they work for you. I'm still having a difficult time justifying the prep work that goes into them without making decisions for the players.

 

[pemerton]

I think that narrativism falls apart when the game world is not real enough.

I find the fantasy world to be a more satisfying construction when it doesn't level in lockstep with the PC's.

I think there are at least two aspects to the "reality" of the gameworld.

One aspect is "causal" or "social/geographic" reality: rivers flow downhill, towns grow up around rivers, people you resuce are grateful, people you are cruel to dislkie you, etc. I think this is fairly important for an RPG that is going to have much depth to its story/theme - it's hard to derive much thematic energy from a setting that doesn't have the minimal sort of coherence with the real world that makes emotional investment and resonance possible.

The second aspect is "mechanical" or "system" reality. In a certain sort of play, this aspect is closely related to the first, either because (i) the mechanics of the game drive the social/causal reality (think Classic Traveller, for example) or (ii) the GM's interpretation and application of causal/social reality is itself part of the mechanical system (this is true of at least parts of Gygaxian AD&D play, I think, and if I understand it properly is also part of LostSoul's 4e "fiction first" hack).

But in my experience it is possible to preserve social/causal reality while divorcing it a fair bit from the mechanics of the game, which take on a bit more of a metagame function. In mathematical terms, for example, the PCs may treble or more in power between Heroic and Paragon tier. But if the gameworld only responds in some much more loose sense - the PCs have gone from local would-be heroes to people of some stature - it doesn't have to hurt the play.

Or to give an example from my current campaign - the PCs start off fighting goblins of mostly 1st to 3rd level, then move on to hobgoblins of mostly 3rd to 6th level, and then gnolls of mostly 5th to 8th level. Those 8th level gnolls could, in mathematical terms, make pretty short work of the 1st level goblins. But in the gameworld, although it is recognised that the gnolls are a bit tougher than the goblins, there is no sense that that toughness is proportionate to the mathematical ratios.

Overall: the maths drives the game in a certain direction, but its interpretation in the gameworld is much looser and more relaxed. As long as nothing happens in the course of the game that forces a direct comparison of the goblin maths to the gnoll maths, no harm done. I've found this to be true even in a pretty hardcore simulationist system (Rolemaster) - none of the players really noticed or complained that the average bandit was around 2nd level when the party was at low levels and around 5th level when the party was at mid levels - it just doesn't come up (in part because no one is paying enough attention, in part because I think it's accepted by at least some players that there will be a degree of opponent-scaling in an RPG). In 4e it's even easier, because there's much less of a sense that the numbers are direct measurements of anything in the gameworld.

 

[Odhanan]

This is part of the point of encounter-buidling guidelines and "points of light". The GM is constrained by the rules as well.

I don't play 4e. I don't adhere to the notion that the rules override the GM's common sense and rulings.

It's the other way around, to me: The GM's common sense and rulings override the rules if need be. That's why you have a flesh and blood GM in the first place, someone who is able to make the game and its rules work for the benefit and pleasure of all involved, and if this means nuking a rule, a bunch of rules, or heck, the whole rulebook to get there, so be it.

 

[Mark]

I don't adhere to the notion that the rules override the GM's common sense and rulings.

It's the other way around, to me: The GM's common sense and rulings override the rules if need be. That's why you have a flesh and blood GM in the first place, someone who is able to make the game and its rules work for the benefit and pleasure of all involved, and if this means nuking a rule, a bunch of rules, or heck, the whole rulebook to get there, so be it.

Brilliant. "You must spread . . " Dammit!

 

[pemerton]

I don't play 4e. I don't adhere to the notion that the rules override the GM's common sense and rulings.

It's the other way around, to me: The GM's common sense and rulings override the rules if need be. That's why you have a flesh and blood GM in the first place, someone who is able to make the game and its rules work for the benefit and pleasure of all involved

I've got nothing against the GM working to make the game a pleasure for all involved. As I've posted upthread, I think that (with the right mechanics and the right group) this can involve pretty hard scene-framing to set up adversity for the PCs. Setting up adversity, and refereeing the way in which the PC's responses ramify through the gameworld, is what I like to focus on GMing.

But in transforming my concepts for the game into mechanics, I like to rely upon the game's encounter-building guidelines - I've found they pretty much deliver the sort of experience I and my players are looking for. For a long time I GMed a game that had almost no such guidelines (Rolemaster) and I found it made encounter design a lot of work for no obvious payoff in terms of the play experience.

And once it comes to actually resolving an encounter, I like to follow the rules very closely. Otherwise I feel it's potentially unfair to the players.

if this means nuking a rule, a bunch of rules, or heck, the whole rulebook to get there, so be it.

After nearly two decades playing Rolemaster, which basically requires you to build your own ruleset from the ground up, I'm pretty happy to have found a fantasy RPG that works for me without having to do very much houseruling.

 

[Odhanan]

I've got nothing against the GM working to make the game a pleasure for all involved. As I've posted upthread, I think that (with the right mechanics and the right group) this can involve pretty hard scene-framing to set up adversity for the PCs. Setting up adversity, and refereeing the way in which the PC's responses ramify through the gameworld, is what I like to focus on GMing.

But in transforming my concepts for the game into mechanics, I like to rely upon the game's encounter-building guidelines - I've found they pretty much deliver the sort of experience I and my players are looking for. For a long time I GMed a game that had almost no such guidelines (Rolemaster) and I found it made encounter design a lot of work for no obvious payoff in terms of the play experience.

And once it comes to actually resolving an encounter, I like to follow the rules very closely. Otherwise I feel it's potentially unfair to the players.

What's good for you is good for you. I mean: who am I to tell you it doesn't work if it actually does, right?

You then shouldn't project your own experience on other people. I ran Rolemaster and MERP as well, for instance. I can tell you, I never actually houseruled the game system, and didn't need to, just like I'm sure we weren't playing the game strictly by the rules-as-written, or spend a lot of time thinking about "appropriate challenges" and the like. And you know what? It worked brilliantly for us.

Now, some would say something to the extent of "we didn't know any better" as if we were naive or somehow missed on something important. I don't see it that way. We just didn't care about all sorts of needless minutiae and modern concepts like game balance and all that jazz. We played the game, we were creative in the way we set up games and dealt with challenges proposed by the GM. If anything, I think many people would actually do well to throw out the window some of the heavy-lifting and prep minutia going on with GMing nowadays to concentrate on the actual game and the pleasure it brings at the table.

It's all fine though. What works for you, works for you. What works for me, works for me.

After nearly two decades playing Rolemaster, which basically requires you to build your own ruleset from the ground up, I'm pretty happy to have found a fantasy RPG that works for me without having to do very much houseruling.

Wait a minute. "Basically requires you"? As in, "me" or "anyone"? No. See, the mistake you're making here is to project your experience onto me by saying it "requires you (me) to build your own rules set from the ground up". I can tell you this is wrong, because I never houseruled RM, and both played and ran it for some time. Me, I'm pretty happy with games that let me be in charge of the actual game so I can make it work for everyone involved. I don't feel the need to house rule everything in a game I run. I just use my common sense, make rulings on the spot, fill the void left in the rules by my presence, wits and smarts as a GM. The rules are tools, and I treat them as such. I've never had any issues at my game table with this, so I must do something right for myself and the players involved.

You're doing your thing, I'm doing mine. All's fine and good.

 

[pemerton]

Odhanan - when I said "basically requires", I was thinking in particular of incorporating relevant material from the RM2 companions. And even RM Classic, which is far cleaner in its presentation than the old RM2 rulebooks, still requires a lot of calls on optional rules.

As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure I get the difference between "houseruling" and "not playing the game strictly rules-as-written and making rulings on the spot". I think Rolemaster (even moreso than AD&D) practically requires the second, and I don't see how that is different from houseruling.

 

[Odhanan]

Odhanan - when I said "basically requires", I was thinking in particular of incorporating relevant material from the RM2 companions. And even RM Classic, which is far cleaner in its presentation than the old RM2 rulebooks, still requires a lot of calls on optional rules.

We played with Companions too (now I'm talking of the French Rolemaster of the 1990s. Must be RM2 by your reckoning, after I checked Wikipedia about this). Not at first, but later on, we did incorporate materials from them. We never had to houserule the game (choosing between options from Companions incorporated in the game doesn't qualify as "house ruling" to me. You're not making up a rule by yourself. You're using material from a game book. However, if you're using material from a game book that jeopardizes the integrity of the whole corpus of rules, and that requires you to fine tune and reconcile some rules between them by making up new rules, then you're house ruling, to me).

As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure I get the difference between "houseruling" and "not playing the game strictly rules-as-written and making rulings on the spot". I think Rolemaster (even moreso than AD&D) practically requires the second, and I don't see how that is different from houseruling.

The difference between houseruling and making a ruling on the spot is very obvious to me when you come down to the actual game play. In one case, you actually put down in writing modifications of the rules and interpretations thereof, and literally create a new corpus of rules at the game table that complete or override existing rules from the game books.

Making a ruling means just that: a situation shows up in the game, you make a judgment call and you just move on. It's part of the game. The GM makes judgment calls. You don't need rules for everything. And indeed, RM and AD&D work great with these play styles.

These games don't require house rules to work at my game table, though.

You seem to be the kind of guy who needs to fill the holes you see in a game system and think it is some kind of flaw of the game itself. It's cool, that's your way to see it, that's fine. I'm from another school of thought in this: for me, these holes? They're a feature, not a bug. I don't feel like every hole needs plugging. Whenever a situation shows up in the game that is not covered by the rules, I make up one or make a judgment call using my common sense. If the situation shows up again, I consider making it a houserule, i.e. putting it in writing for further reference and overall coherence in game play. Not all judgment calls require house ruling later on, at least not in my experience.

It's alright. We have two different ways of looking at things like this.

 

[Lanefan]

As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure I get the difference between "houseruling" and "not playing the game strictly rules-as-written and making rulings on the spot". I think Rolemaster (even moreso than AD&D) practically requires the second, and I don't see how that is different from houseruling.

Odhanan may have a different take, but to me there is a subtle difference: a houserule is something you usually do intentionally, usually outside of play and usually ahead of time, that involves changing, removing, or adding to an existing rule. The other kind you usually do on the fly during actual play, most often to either fill a gap that the existing rules don't cover at all or to solve what would otherwise be a contradiction within the RAW or between the RAW and the written adventure module.

The two merge into being pretty much the same thing once they permanently become part of your Game As Played (GAP).

Lan-"every day needs a new acronym"-efan