The GM should facilitate play. That is they are allowed to help ease the rules into use, to depart from them if needed, and to otherwise help move the game towards "fun" for everyone involved. The game rules are a starting point of common ground, which can be stuck too, or deviated from, once everyone is brought up to the same speed.

Quote from: Aos;291702Why can't rules be balanced?

Because ultimately rules don't exist in a vacuum but are applied in a game that involves particular people with particular needs, wants, tastes, personalities and inclinations.

At best, a game designer just eyeballs what might be an average gaming group, but that's all it is. Now, I'd argue there's actually no such thing as an "average gaming group", so the exercise after a certain point is wishful, theoretical thinking, and doesn't actually have any beneficial effect on the actual game play of the end users.

To take my example of the Fighting Man and the Magic User, on the paper the Magic User with all his spells might look powerful, but if the Fighting Man's player is a resourceful, cunning, active player where the Magic User's would be hesitant, shy and rather dull at the game table, then the Fighting Man will end up being the most effective character in the actual game.

Quote from: Benoist;291708Because ultimately rules don't exist in a vacuum but are applied in a game that involves particular people with particular needs, wants, tastes, personalities and inclinations.

At best, a game designer just eyeballs what might be an average gaming group, but that's all it is. Now, I'd argue there's actually no such thing as an "average gaming group", so the exercise after a certain point is wishful, theoretical thinking, and doesn't actually have any beneficial effect on the actual game play of the end users.

To take my example of the Fighting Man and the Magic User, on the paper the Magic User with all his spells might look powerful, but if the Fighting Man's player is a resourceful, cunning, active player where the Magic User's would be hesitant, shy and rather dull at the game table, then the Fighting Man will end up being the most effective character in the actual game.

That strikes me as more of an issue of player imbalance- which happens every time two people sit down to play a game (even somthing as codified as chess) and hardly strikes me as a problem with the rules. In fact, if such differences in capability were muted by the rules, that would stirke me a imbalance- becuase the rules would have to be unequally applied. were i the more capable player I'd feel rooked. whereas in a system that does not mute the differences in player capabability the 'bad' player has three options: continue to suck, get better, or quit.

I think all the players at the table, including the GM, need to agree on the rules of that game or things will be dysfunctional.  Unless otherwise agreed to in advance, playing a game means you're all agreeing to play by the rules of that game.

If you want to play a game where the GM should be making a lot of rulings and not be overly restricted by the rules -- pick a rules-light system.

I'm not saying that there would be a "problem with the rules". I'm saying that rules by virtue of being rules on a page cannot deal with actual game balance. Let's not forget that we're talking about role-playing games here, which have everything to do with the player's inclinations, tastes, proactive behavior... and eventual degree of suckage.

That's why you have a GM to begin with, and that's why only a GM (with the assistance of the players) can create actual game balance.
Not rules.

Now, I don't want people to believe I'm actually saying rules are useless. That's not true.

Rules ARE useful.

Rules help create a climate of trust and cooperation, a basic compact, if you will, between players and GM, so that everyone knows what they're getting into in terms of the way the game milieu will actually function.

If I was to modify the rules of the game, that means I would be upfront about it and make sure the players know about it. I won't take them by surprise or first agree to use a certain rule to then ditch it on the spot (unless the players agreed with me at the moment, of course).

Can something static, with no life or mind of it´s own ever be the arbiter of anything?? Maybe some very hard core gamers are starting to hear their rulebooks speak!

Quote from: jrients;291701I believe that for normal RPGs the GM is the ultimate authority.

And what about kinky ones?

This thread and the other one, the Pundit started, same shit different shovel.

Who the ultimate aribter is depends on what the group agrees to. That's about it, really.

Regards,
David R

And thus has ever been!

Quote from: David R;291744Who the ultimate aribter is depends on what the group agrees to. That's about it, really.

This. I was just about to post this.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;291750This. I was just about to post this.

-clash

I concur. It is variable and determined by group preference.

Quote from: droog;291705That's a circular definition.

Yes.

Lets talk about the impact of mullets, or the reduction thereof on RPGs.

Quote from: RPGPundit;291631Let's put the balls to the wall here: which one is it? Do you really believe that the GM should be forced to obey the rules and should have no more right than the players to choose to ignore the rules?

If so, defend that, and show us where the bad White-wolf-GM touched you.

RPGPundit

The GM is God and the rules are the GM's servant, not the GM's master.

Wear your Viking Hats with pride.

Quote from: Aos;291702This statement isn't an explanation; it is in need of an explanation. Why can't rules be balanced?

They can be (well almost), provided everyone is playing in the exact same campaign running the exact same adventures. 4e, for example, is very well-balanced for RPGA style play. This "perfect" balance begins to break down once people start designing their own adventures and often falls apart if people design their own campaign world where the campaign assumptions built into the rules are no longer completely true.

Of course, even rules with RPGA style play are only really in balance if all GMs run the campaign world and adventures exactly the same way, with as little variation from the designer's intent as possible. (All aboard the railroad! Tickets please!).

Even here things can go wrong and spoil the balance. Say you are playing 3e and have a player like me who isn't interesting studying thousands of pages of rules to build highly optimized characters or you are playing 4e and have a player not interested in the fiddly details of 4e's tactical combat?  The designer probably did not plan for that, so the rules can easily be out of balance when such a player is in the game.

Some games even assume a group will have a set number of players and go out of balance when the group is a player or two larger or smaller than the number the rules were designed for.

Therefore, I think the idea that RPG rules should be balanced is a pipe dream. It's an impossible standard that no RPG designer can meet. Therefore it is up to the GM to balance things for his campaign world, adventures, group play style and group member interestes, disinterests, and quirks.