Quote from: gleichman;546125In short:  Do the players enjoy playing the GM more than playing the Game

The game isn't the rules. The rules are not the game. The "game" is what happens in the shared world created by the participants interactions, including the GM. Talking to each other, asking questions back and forth, you know. Playing the game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546124with all due respect this seems a bit pedandic and harsh. I mean if a group houserules that you can use CON or STR to modify intimidate in 3E, should I call them "liars" when they ask me to join their game of "D&D". House rules are an longstanding tradition in the game. As long as i can recognize the basic shaoe of the system I am prepared to say it is still D&D. Now if they did something crazy like get rid of vancian casting and give every class special encounter and daily powers, you might have a point:)

It's a matter of degree.

My own house rules for HERO System are rather long, but very few of them change or add an actual rule (most are merely a different standard of building things within the rules- lower BODY, etc).

But there's a critical point where the the line is crossed and the game is no longer the same. Altering the game's resolution system is the clearest example of this (which btw is exactly you claim to do as standard procedure) but there are others.

Quote from: gleichman;546131It's a matter of degree.

My own house rules for HERO System are rather long, but very few of them change or add an actual rule (most are merely a different standard of building things within the rules- lower BODY, etc).

But there's a critical point where the the line is crossed and the game is no longer the same. Altering the game's resolution system is the clearest example of this (which btw is exactly you claim to do as standard procedure) but there are others.

I would say I am still playing network even with the on-the-fly judgements I allow. Everything is very much by the book andit is only when the book falls short that I make such judgements. Were i suddenly rolling pools of d4s instead of d10s or using different movement rules, then there might be an argument that we are no longer playing network. But the same essential system is in the play.

Quote from: gleichman;546125A child may or may not trust his mother, it matters not. It still must ask permission.

You are missing the point. Child is powerless. The player is not. The mother has authority automatically (whether she is trusted or not trusted). The GM's authority is granted and limited by players (it begins with their trust and they can place limits on what they will except). As a player you always have the power to object or say "no", and you can collectively take away the GM's authority if he makes bad choices.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546135I would say I am still playing network even with the on-the-fly judgements I allow.

Since your the designer of network (I assume you are), I will take you at your word.

To use another example, GMs and players of Feng Shui are also playing that game with such on-fly judgements because that game was designed to use such on-fly judgements in the first place (if I remembering the correct game, I don't have a copy to check).


However if you were using your methods with Age of Heroes or D&D, I'd have to say that you're no longer playing Age of Heroes or D&D.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546136As a player you always have the power to object or say "no", and you can collectively take away the GM's authority if he makes bad choices.

CPS may also take away a Mother's authority. As does the child growing up (hopefully) or their Mother dying.

Lost of authority has no bearing. That can always happen.

What matters is what game the players have agreed to. In your case they've agreed to "Mother-May-I" for combat resolution.

Quote from: gleichman;546137Since your the designer of network (I assume you are), I will take you at your word.

To use another example, GMs and players of Feng Shui are also playing that game with such on-fly judgements because that game was designed to use such on-fly judgements in the first place (if I remembering the correct game, I don't have a copy to check).


However if you were using your methods with Age of Heroes or D&D, I'd have to say that you're no longer playing Age of Heroes or D&D.

I dont feel the designers have any special claim once people buy and play the game. I have heard from lots of folks who tweaked our damage mechanic to make it more lethal or less lethal. I my opinion, they are still playing network.

 Does a game have to explicitly say it allows for creative rule interpretations? And if it doesn't and houserule stuff why are now suddenly not playing the game. I agree there is a certain line where you are not playing the game anymore. But you seem to be setting it exceptionally low.

Quote from: gleichman;546138What matters is what game the players have agreed to. In your case they've agreed to "Mother-May-I" for combat resolution.

In your case it seems like the players have agreed to a competitive game against the GM with both sides restricted to pre-defined rules constructs dictating their in-game actions.

Quote from: gleichman;546138CPS may also take away a Mother's authority. As does the child growing up (hopefully) or their Mother dying.

The introduction of CPS is really twisting the metaphor here. If the child has that power, it isn't mother may i. It is now "mother i am going to". At that point it is no longer mother may i. However if CPS has the authprity, not the child, it is mother may I.

QuoteLost of authority has no bearing. That can always happen.

What matters is what game the players have agreed to. In your case they've agreed to "Mother-May-I" for combat resolution.

it has all the bearing in the world. If the GM's authority is there because the players granted it, his decisions have to weigh how the playerrs will react. He isn't an unelected judge with full power of life and death. "Mother may I" implies a powerlessness that just isn't present in an rpg.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546141I dont feel the designers have any special claim once people buy and play the game.

They certainly have no power to alter the result. But I think they have a right to say that person X isn't playing it the way it was intended to be played (typically followed by cries of "What I have created!" in a doctor frankenstein voice).

One player who played Age of Heroes from a unfinished PDF years ago emailed me and said that he was having a wondeful time with the game, but noted that he didn't use it with a map and minis.

I thought it nice that he was having a great time, but wondered why he picked AoH. The huge point of the design was maneuver on the grid, by taking it out- one is left with a resolution system that that by itself is IMO rather boring lacking even the interest of significant Resource Management.

He wasn't really playing AoH, but was a having a good time even so.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546141Does a game have to explicitly say it allows for creative rule interpretations? And if it doesn't and houserule stuff why are now suddenly not playing the game. I agree there is a certain line where you are not playing the game anymore. But you seem to be setting it exceptionally low.

Such things have to be judged on a case by case basis.

But a quick test is the ability to copy the details of event and see if the results (combat typically) they get in the house ruled game can be smoothly duplicated with RAW.

If there is a significant difference in either process or outcome- you're playing a different game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546143it has all the bearing in the world. If the GM's authority is there because the players granted it, his decisions have to weigh how the playerrs will react. He isn't an unelected judge with full power of life and death. "Mother may I" implies a powerlessness that just isn't present in an rpg.

Have you had children? If so you should understand any mother who's worthly of title the considers how their child will react to their rulings. It's why they avoid (or should) inconsistent or unreasonable ones- for they want to teach their child to be consistent and reasonable.

It's different not in concept, only in degree when you're playing with the type of GM control you've claimed. A GM who fails at Mother-May-I may lose a player, a Mother who fails at the game suffers far worse.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;546142In your case it seems like the players have agreed to a competitive game against the GM with both sides restricted to pre-defined rules constructs dictating their in-game actions.

I do not compete against my players (if I did, I would always win). I'm a neutral refree during combat resolution, nothing more.

I am however bound by the same rules they are, thus making the outcome completely objective. They win or not by their skill (or its lack) at playing the game.

Quote from: gleichman;546160Have you had children? If so you should understand any mother who's worthly of title the considers how their child will react to their rulings. It's why they avoid (or should) inconsistent or unreasonable ones- for they want to teach their child to be consistent and reasonable.

It's different not in concept, only in degree when you're playing with the type of GM control you've claimed. A GM who fails at Mother-May-I may lose a player, a Mother who fails at the game suffers far worse.

The Gross Conceptual Error here that Gleichman refuses to address is that people do not have a choice about their mother while growing up, but do indeed have a choice about their GM when in a game - thus they can always leave a crappy GM's game but cannot voluntarily leave their own mother as a child easily.

Mother=/=GM

Quote from: Benoist;546106Looking at what RPGs do that's not like other media, and then trying to make them function more like these other media because that rubs your sensibilities the wrong way.

Once again, you've got your head so far up your ass you've managed to read the exact opposite of what I said.

Seriously, just shut the fuck up already.

Quote from: daniel_ream;546165Once again, you've got your head so far up your ass you've managed to read the exact opposite of what I said.

Yes, because improvisational oral storytelling is totally what RPGs are actually about. They are the same medium.

Seriously.

:forge: