Quote from: Edsan;291802If on the other hand it means the GM gets to ignore all rules and rulings at his whim during the game, like say, decree the critical a player rolled to chop off the head of his NPC darling fails "just because" then no.

What's to stop a poor GM from doing that without apparently going outside the rules? The GM just preloads the character with nice magic/superscience/whatever items to prevent such things from being effective. Or has the character protected by the Gods in some way (e.g. Achilles protected everywhere but his heel).

Any competent GM can royally jerk over the players AND follow the rules in any RPG (the more rules it has, the easier it often is).  So following the rules doesn't protect the players if I want to be a jerk/killer GM, but trying to strictly follow those rules can greatly limit my ability to run a good campaign that the regulars and the majority of compatible with the group newcomers will really enjoy (by prevent the use of my campaign worlds among other things). My solution: those who want their GM to follow the rules at all times -- even when not doing so would make a better game for the majority of those at the table -- can play in some other GM's game.

Quote from: RandallS;291824What's to stop a poor GM from doing that without apparently going outside the rules? The GM just preloads the character with nice magic/superscience/whatever items to prevent such things from being effective. Or has the character protected by the Gods in some way (e.g. Achilles protected everywhere but his heel).

And that is perfectly fine because the ubber-abilliy of the NPC was designed before gameplay comenced. What the GM has to do is abide by the limits he self-imposed on his own creations.

If he puts Achiles in the game and a PC shoots him in the ankle with a poisoned arrow, well...bye bye oh most mighty among the Greeks.

But if all of a sudden Achiles just develops an immune ankle, then the GM is just screwing  with the players.

Quote from: RandallS;291824Any competent GM can royally jerk over the players...

That's not a competent GM, I have better things to do than be the target of a GM's masturbatory preferences.

Quote from: RandallS;291824My solution: those who want their GM to follow the rules at all times -- even when not doing so would make a better game for the majority of those at the table -- can play in some other GM's game.

As long as you make clear what your rules are (i.e. dictatorship type game for majority of fun + GM wants to tell his own story) before the game starts and make them clear to newcomers all is fine and good.

Quote from: droog;291775I personally think it's significant that I had the reverse mullet. What do you think?

I think it's an early indication that you would eventually become an RPG heretic.

It's not just a matter of the GM being a jerk or "killer" GM -- changing rules to guarantee player success is just as bad in many ways.  Even with the best of intentions, changing rules can have unforseen effects.

Edit:  That is - changing rules secretly...

Quote from: Edsan;291827And that is perfectly fine because the ubber-abilliy of the NPC was designed before gameplay comenced. What the GM has to do is abide by the limits he self-imposed on his own creations.

If he puts Achiles in the game and a PC shoots him in the ankle with a poisoned arrow, well...bye bye oh most mighty among the Greeks.

But if all of a sudden Achiles just develops an immune ankle, then the GM is just screwing  with the players.




That's not a competent GM, I have better things to do than be the target of a GM's masturbatory preferences.

The above is a good example of a GM being an asshole, but let me give an example where playing strictly by the rules would have fucked everything up.

    d20 Traveller game, the PCs have just gotten enough information to start the adventure and are jumping to the destination system. We roll to see if the ship misjumps. It does. Badly, so bad that the result according to the dice roll and the rules is the destruction of the ship. Now, if I wasn't a Viking Hat GM, then I would have had to let the entire game fall apart before it had even begun in order to follow the rules.

Instead I fudged the dice because I am the arbiter of the rules and not a computer following a program. The game went on, the PCs ship did not explode killing all the characters.

Quote from: Edsan;291827And that is perfectly fine because the ubber-abilliy of the NPC was designed before gameplay comenced.

How do the players know they were? From the player's POV, there is no difference between the ability having been designed into the character from before the character was introduced and the GM adding the ability on the spot to keep the character alive. In fact, there is no way for the players to tell which is the case. All they know is they got a critical that should have cut the character's head off and that's not what happened.

QuoteIf he puts Achiles in the game and a PC shoots him in the ankle with a poisoned arrow, well...bye bye oh most mighty among the Greeks.

If it is actually Achilles, that would be true as the players would know for a fact (due to metagame knowledge) that Achilles heels were not protected. However, let's say the characters is "Fredrick the Terrible."  The characters were told by supposedly knowledgeable in game sources that if you hit him in the bare heel, he'll keel over dead. The players do so and Fredrick the Terrible doesn't die. If this because the information they had was incomplete or even completely wrong -- or was it because the GM changed his mind and protected the character? How would the players know?

QuoteAs long as you make clear what your rules are (i.e. dictatorship type game for majority of fun + GM wants to tell his own story) before the game starts and make them clear to newcomers all is fine and good.

On this much we agree. So long as the GM and group are clear on the style of play, then any style of play is fine.

Quote from: jeff37923;291832The above is a good example of a GM being an asshole, but let me give an example where playing strictly by the rules would have fucked everything up.

    d20 Traveller game, the PCs have just gotten enough information to start the adventure and are jumping to the destination system. We roll to see if the ship misjumps. It does. Badly, so bad that the result according to the dice roll and the rules is the destruction of the ship. Now, if I wasn't a Viking Hat GM, then I would have had to let the entire game fall apart before it had even begun in order to follow the rules.

Instead I fudged the dice because I am the arbiter of the rules and not a computer following a program. The game went on, the PCs ship did not explode killing all the characters.

The problem there is with the system. Any rule that says 'when you do standard action x there is a % chance you will die with no chance of a save' is a daft rule. Why would that ever be a good rule to have in a game?
I mean the whole traveller mechanic of your character dying during character gen was a litle odd in any case :-)

Quote from: jeff37923;291832d20 Traveller game, the PCs have just gotten enough information to start the adventure and are jumping to the destination system. We roll to see if the ship misjumps. It does. Badly, so bad that the result according to the dice roll and the rules is the destruction of the ship. Now, if I wasn't a Viking Hat GM, then I would have had to let the entire game fall apart before it had even begun in order to follow the rules.

Instead I fudged the dice because I am the arbiter of the rules and not a computer following a program. The game went on, the PCs ship did not explode killing all the characters.

I'm not familiar with d20 Traveller - was that a risk the players knew about and chose?  Was there an alternative to taking that risk?

If that was a non-optional roll I'd be upfront with the players and we'd house-rule that out of the game.  I wouldn't make-believe they got lucky though "phew!  Another lucky roll guys..."

If that *was* an optional roll, I'd make sure the players understood the risk involved before they took the gamble... although I think I'd have house-ruled that out of the game immediately.  Anything that can wipe out the entire party on a single dice-roll in such a way shouldn't be in the game.

It'd be like rolling to see if the party contracts the plague in D&D and saying "Oh, I rolled 100 -- the entire party is dead".  That'd be pretty lame.

Quote from: RandallS;291833How do the players know they were? From the player's POV, there is no difference between the ability having been designed into the character from before the character was introduced and the GM adding the ability on the spot to keep the character alive. In fact, there is no way for the players to tell which is the case. All they know is they got a critical that should have cut the character's head off and that's not what happened.

What if the players expended resources following the correct course of action only to have you switch things around to make it an incorrect choice?  (eg. Fired off his last magic arrow and rolled a critical success)

What if your players are better at poker than you and can see it in your eyes that you're bluffing?

Quote from: droog;291776And that's a logical fallacy.

Perhaps I should try harder then.

I believe the GM is the ultimate arbiter in RPGing.  However, the GM can opt to relinquish this authority.  For example, I wouldn't run World of Synnibarr without following the rules calling for total adherence to the RAW and the GM's own adventure notes.  There'd be no point.  Ditto other fringe designs that place limits on the GM.  To ignore those rules would be the equivalent of bringing a jetpack to a bicycle race.

But for D&D and the vast majority of rpgs that interest me (i.e. what I called 'normal RPGs' in my first post in the thread), I would feel absolutely no such compunction.

Quote from: Stuart;291836What if the players expended resources following the correct course of action only to have you switch things around to make it an incorrect choice?  (eg. Fired off his last magic arrow and rolled a critical success)

How would they know they are following the correct course of action. I suppose if we were playing in Arn and Shimmira (THE Creator Goddess and ultimate power in creation) personally told them the "correct course of action" it would be. Other than some situation like that, the the "correct course of action" in Arn in no more certain than it is in real life.

QuoteWhat if your players are better at poker than you and can see it in your eyes that you're bluffing?

In that case, both players and GM are screwed -- at least when it comes to having any mystery in the game.

Quote from: RandallS;291838How would they know they are following the correct course of action. I suppose if we were playing in Arn and Shimmira (THE Creator Goddess and ultimate power in creation) personally told them the "correct course of action" it would be. Other than some situation like that, the the "correct course of action" in Arn in no more certain than it is in real life.

What's the point in playing a game then?  Why not just ask them to sit back while you tell them a story?

Edit:

Quote from: RandallS;291838In that case, both players and GM are screwed -- at least when it comes to having any mystery in the game.

Changing things on-the-fly isn't real mystery.  It's Chris Carter "X-Files" mysterious which isn't the same thing as a real mystery at all.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;291783Actually it's nothing like that. In brief: you are a cocksmock.

Oh Kyle, you say the loveliest things. However, you're conflating a bunch of unrelated ideas and hiding behind ideology.

Before you play chess with someone do you hand them a piece of paper that describes how you play chess in your house? "Here, in my house, the knight doesn't move in an L pattern. He moves how and when I say he moves."

Rules are rules. A game is designed in a certain way to encourage certain behavior. I understand that you yourself are too dumb to understand this, but I think this concept is self-evident to most people: You play a game by the rules to ensure that the game is fair and so that it produces the proper range of results.

When you play board games, do you reach across the board and grab the dice away from a player when he's about to do win and say, "You do not cross GO until I say so."

You and Pundit and company have a complex about the "power of the GM" and how he's special and he has more power than any other player in an RPG. You go on and on about swine, but this is the most swinish behavior of all in gaming.

RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.

Fatbeard GMs weezing macho edicts about bizarre social dynamics that must be obeyed in their group as the cheeze-doodle crumbs fall from their encrusted hairy mouths -- that's what drives people away from this hobby. Yes Kyle, in short, people like you.

I'll say it again: RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player. Loudly declaring the GM to be above the rules of the game is adolescent and truly swinish behavior.

This isn't about play style. This isn't about preference. Don't conflate them with this. A group is perfectly capable of determining its play style and what types of games it prefers. Play style and game preferences have nothing to do with playing a game as designed versus letting one player go on a macho patriarchal power trip and declare the game "his."

-Luke

Quote from: Stuart;291839What's the point in playing a game then?  Why not just ask them to sit back while you tell them a story?

Because I don't have a story to tell. The story comes from the PC's actions. Not having perfect information doesn't change that. Not knowing all the rules in advance doesn't change that. Not knowing if something was planned in detail in advance or thought up 10 seconds ago doesn't affect that.

I tend to run a huge sandbox where players can have their characters do what they want within the limitations of their character and the campaign reality -- note the lack of any mention of "within the limits of the rules". If they want to do something I don't have any plans for, I just make things up as we go along. Yes, entire adventures, dungeons, etc. made up on the fly during play -- I do it all the time.

QuoteChanging things on-the-fly isn't real mystery.  It's Chris Carter "X-Files" mysterious which isn't the same thing as a real mystery at all.

LOL. True. However, I was referring to the players being able to read my "poker face" and know when I'm changing things. If they can read my face that well, they'd also know when I'm giving them information that some NPC believes is true but I know isn't true.  If the players can reliably tell when I'm telling such things, there goes any chance of mystery.

Quote from: luke;291849RPGs are not special. GMs are not special. RPGs are games like any other and GMs are just another player.

On this point I agree with the guy with the little piggy tiara on his head and the prententious little white dress on.