Quote from: BWA;416295Also, to counter your Made-Up Internet Facts with real experience,

What made-up facts are those?

Depends on the DM and the individual players.

Back in the day, I've played in games where the players physically threatened and even physically assaulted the DM for making certain rulings they didn't like, regardless of whether the ruling was according to the rpg rulebooks.

One DM I knew of, even kept a hammer hidden in a bag (or a baseball bat nearby) to deal with players who get physically violent.  They've had to use the hammer or baseball bat more than once.

Quote from: ggroy;416399One DM I knew of, even kept a hammer hidden in a bag (or a baseball bat nearby) to deal with players who get physically violent.  They've had to use the hammer or baseball bat more than once.

I shake my head but love the sheer madness of this.

Fuck the GM, the baseball bat is the final authority!

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;416419I shake my head but love the sheer madness of this.

Fuck the GM, the baseball bat is the final authority!

The baseball bat case was in a some games which had two or three brothers that were frequently beating each other up outside of the game.  One brother was usually the DM.  When one of them didn't like a DM ruling, they would beat up their brother who was DM'ing.

Quote from: One Horse Town;416394What made-up facts are those?

Oh, you know, just the usual uninformed bullshit passed off as Something Factual. Like you saying that people write games with GM constraints because they're "scared" of heavy-authority GM games, or Koltar sharing his own dull, provincial preferences, but dressing them up like they were objective truths determined through scientific inquiry.

Quote from: ggroy;416399One DM I knew of, even kept a hammer hidden in a bag (or a baseball bat nearby) to deal with players who get physically violent.  They've had to use the hammer or baseball bat more than once.

It's weird that this game was functional enough to continue long enough for that to happen "more than once".

Quote from: BWA;416424It's weird that this game was functional enough to continue long enough for that to happen "more than once".

It can happen more than once, when two or three persons in the gaming group are brothers (siblings) who beat up on one another frequently.

Quote from: BWA;416424Oh, you know, just the usual uninformed bullshit passed off as Something Factual. Like you saying that people write games with GM constraints because they're "scared" of heavy-authority GM games,

Point out where i've said this is FACT.

If you're refering to this; "'Cos i've yet to come across PC killer DMs that all these pansies have devoted thousands of words in describing are scared of." Then that's personal experience - which you're basically saying is wrong because of your personal experience. The bit about writing thousands of words doesn't refer to games, but the countless essays, and theory that has basically arisen from this non-issue.

If you're refering to this; "Quite. i posit that those who exist won't magically become decent people if confronted with a ruleset that castrates the GMs power. Systems aren't the cause of problem GMs, problem people are." This is quite obviously an opinion. It's there in the third word.

Opinions are like arseholes, we all have one. It's just that those who like to think theirs are better often use rhetorical tricks to try to shut dissenting voices down. Like you've done here.

The GM is the final authority in the RPG. RPGs were set up to work that way. If you have a game where the GM is not the final authority, it is not an RPG.

There are GMs who are obviously better or worse at handling this final authority.

And yes, forgeites largely turned to GM-castration as a favored ideological position because of "fear" in the sense of bad experiences, particularly with the heavy-handed metaplot and "illusionism" stuff that happened in the White Wolf games.  Ironically, their answer to this was to make the Game Designer the final authority, even though that was what was really to blame for most of White Wolf's crapulent excesses: designers like Rein·Hagen encouraging GMs to be douches and obliging GMs to follow the company's Metaplot.

RPGPundit

Quote from: PaladinCA;416316I'm our group's organizer, whether I am GMing the current game or not.

There is no reason why coordination of a group's activities must fall on the GM's shoulders, though that is probably the default assumption out there.

I think there's actually a very good reason why the GM is the coordinator - a game session can still occur with a player or two missing.  It can't without a GM.  Thus, having the GM in charge of scheduling just makes sense.

There's also the "the players tend to be lazy" thing.  GMs have to put in a lot of effort to get things ready for a session.  Players tend to just show up.  This tends to mean that outside of the sessions, they don't tend to spend a lot of time thinking about them, which means they aren't going to be the best organizers.

Obviously, groups where GMs trade off a lot from session to session would have a different dynamic.  But IME, such groups are in the extreme minority.

BWA, if you put as much effort into actually playing a game as you have into pretension and condescension in this thread, you might just actually experience that thing which we poor unwashed masses call "fun".

Quote from: jgants;416451Obviously, groups where GMs trade off a lot from session to session would have a different dynamic.  But IME, such groups are in the extreme minority.

That may be why I coordinate all of the games. I ran the first game for my current group but the group has five out of six people that have GM experience.

When we voted for the second game, I just kept coordinating the games out of habit. I've been doing it ever since (over 3 years). We tend to collaborate on when to meet next so nothing is set in stone. This has advantages and disadvantages of course.

When it goes well, we get in two 6 hour sessions per month. When it goes poorly, we might miss a month of games (like last month).

Quote from: RPGPundit;416450The GM is the final authority in the RPG. RPGs were set up to work that way. If you have a game where the GM is not the final authority, it is not an RPG.

And where is this carved in stone? On the same tablet that tells, that you must use funny dice for it to be an rpg, and thereby making Amber an non-rpg?

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;416463And where is this carved in stone? On the same tablet that tells, that you must use funny dice for it to be an rpg, and thereby making Amber an non-rpg?

GM-less games are fine for one-shots.  Have you ever successfully campaigned with one?

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;416463And where is this carved in stone? On the same tablet that tells, that you must use funny dice for it to be an rpg, and thereby making Amber an non-rpg?

Well, the first RPG does use dice, so that must be how they're meant to be played...

Seanchai

I am totally imagine some sort of GM-less game using card mechanics to replicate random dungeon design or what not. Couldn't see why that woudln't be an RPG. I can also imagine a game of that type where the other players rate 'roleplaying' and award bonus stuff for good play etc so moving it out of HeroQuest territory.

After a few years on this site I am still kind of confused as to why people find it necessary to say 'this isn't an RPG becuase it has' :-

• No GM
• Limits to what the GM can do built into the rules
• No mechanical charcter development
• No dice
• A random plot builder
• Lets you play evil charcters
• Let's people spend acquired points to find blacksmiths, or clothes that fit or ...
• etc
• etc

First I would call bullshit because the actual action of play is the same. Second why would you bother to fracture an ever decreasing hobby by introducing arbitary limits as to what is allowed to be in in. Sure there are shit games, sure there are games that are juvinile and focus on something the designers what to be shocking like sex with monkeys, sure bunches of people like the Forge will come and go with views of some high level Theory, but all that is crap and no one cares. No one cares (well obviously some people here do but why?)

Is Victory Games 007 not an RPG because I can use a Hero point to find a signal flare in that locker? Is Amber not an RPG because there is no Randomness? Is Daredevils not an RPG because my character can make a Criminal Subculture roll to find someone in New York (who the GM never invented) that can forge a passport? Is my D&D game not an RPG because I'll allow a PC to 'grab a wine bottle from the table to use a weapon' when they haven't first asked me if there is a bottle on the table? No of course not they are all RPGs and I am sure that all these crappy forge games that I have only ever heard about on web forums play in much the same way as traveller or SW when it comes to what you actually do with your mates when you are playing.

As for GM authority... the players vest you with that authority and if you are shit they will take it away... such is it now and such has it always been.

(PS what is the deal with people not liking WW games? I ran a totally awesome Vampire game for a year and a half. I didn't worry about meta-plot, the PCs were basically 'superheroes with fangs', athough one of them was a bit Thespie and 2 of them were actually Knights Templars not Vampires at all but I digress... The game was fantastic! I can only assume its because the Larp stuff attracts a load of nobbish Goth kids who are incredibly annoying but so ... its not like I have to invite Fat guys who don't wash and eat a lot of pizza round to my house when we watch Star Trek ...)