Quote from: soviet;624255Benoist, do you think that players should also have the right to break or ignore the rules of the game at will?

Is this in regard to tabletop rpg games, or games in general?

Quote from: jeff37923;624264Instead of crafting rules to ensure that the GM is acting fairly, why not just create ways to train or teach or advise people to become better GMs?

It's not about whether the GM is fair or not. It's about whether one person has veto power over the game or not. How well they use that power is only part of the story.

Quote from: jeff37923;624264So what happens when the Players do something that is not in the rules?

The GM talks to the player and they make up something that sounds like fun.

Quote from: jeff37923;624264How does having a GM remove Player ability to have a "more equal role in driving the story forward"?

If one person has a veto over what happens and another person doesn't, the person that doesn't have a veto has a less equal role than the one that does.

Quote from: soviet;624263Absolutely there are some play styles where this kind of fudging is a good thing. I'm just saying that there are some playstyles where it's bad. But that in itself is contingent on choosing the right system. If I'm playing a challenge-focused game I would choose my system carefully based on the level of risk to the PCs I wanted to have. Last time I ran this kind of game I used AD&D 2, rolling everything in the open with target numbers etc said out loud, and it was great fun. We had loads of near TPKs, including a memorable one with a carrion crawler that took down every PC bar one before getting shot down at the last minute. if that last PC had lost initiative, missed, or not rolled enough damage with his arrow, it would have been a TPK. It really was an awesome session.

Next time I run this kind of game I'm thinking of using Rolemaster. But maybe I'd better throw in a few NPC henchmen as well, just so we have a few more spare bodies knocking round when things get messy. :-)

I think you are missing my point because a prolonged combat is different than a single die roll. Your comparative example would only make sense if a single die roll would resolve the entire combat and if failed, result in a Total Party Kill.

Quote from: soviet;624263By the same token, when I want to play a storygame style approach, I choose a system where PC death cannot happen randomly such as Other Worlds. Normally the stakes of failure are things like NPCs getting killed, cities being overrun, special items being broken, and things like that. Having said that, last night we did put a character's life on the line and he only made it by about 5 points on a d100 roll. But we did that consciously because the situation was important enough that the PC dying as a result would have been an appropriate consequence.

So you as GM used an abitrary die roll to take away the Player's capability to use his PC to engage in heroic self-sacrifice? Is this not what you have been warning others against happenning?

Quote from: soviet;624270It's not about whether the GM is fair or not. It's about whether one person has veto power over the game or not. How well they use that power is only part of the story.

But a very very important part, wouldn't you agree?

Quote from: soviet;624270The GM talks to the player and they make up something that sounds like fun.

Sounds like fun or sounds like an appropriate resolution for that particular situation? Can't a GM come up with one on their own?

Quote from: soviet;624270If one person has a veto over what happens and another person doesn't, the person that doesn't have a veto has a less equal role than the one that does.

A less equal role or just a less equal veto?

Quote from: jeff37923;624275So you as GM used an abitrary die roll to take away the Player's capability to use his PC to engage in heroic self-sacrifice? Is this not what you have been warning others against happenning?

Sorry, I don't see how you got that from what I said. No, that isn't what happened.

Quote from: soviet;624277Sorry, I don't see how you got that from what I said. No, that isn't what happened.

If the Player uses his character to engage in heroic self-sacrifice and die to achieve a result, then while the PC dies the Player has won in directing the story. Correct?

Now what about the rest of my post above.

The referee's power was an essential consequence of the limited-information nature of the D&D game, quite apart from any highbrow concept of "role-playing."

The challenge of the game depended on the game master knowing things to which the players were not privy.

On the other hand, if one wants a game in which players unabashedly take on authorial roles, then such limits may be irrelevant, or even contrary, to the object.

Quote from: jeff37923;624283If the Player uses his character to engage in heroic self-sacrifice and die to achieve a result, then while the PC dies the Player has won in directing the story. Correct?

Eh?

Quote from: jeff37923;624283Now what about the rest of my post above.

Eh? Oh, I see, you edited some more questions in after I'd started my reply.

1) I agree it's an important part, but it's not the only important part.

2) Sure, I guess, although I prefer to get input from the group as well.

3) i don't see the distinction.

Quote from: jeff37923;624254What about situations when that undefined surprise results in a Total Party Kill?

I was running a d20 Traveller game and in the first hour of play, due to a fluke die roll, the Players had their ship destroyed in a misjump. Surprise! Now as GM, I decided that the ship was not destroyed, but misjumped into another subsector and the Players had to find their way back. I used my veto power to remove the Surprise! and ameliorate the dice roll result into a Surprise! that was not a Total Party Kill in the first hour of the game.

Judgement is the key distinction here.

What you are advocating would have resulted in the Players getting their PCs killed in the first hour of gaming. What then? Roll up new ones? Why should they when their first PCs were snuffed out so unceremoneously?

I think that not to 'fudge' like that is probably not what most of the "rulesbooks chaining bad GMs to protect us players" crowd would advocate.

Some no doubt are keen on playing the regulated odds and letting the dice fall as they may. Heck, they might even get a bigger thrill out of a massively multi-player (and often player-versus-player) campaign like 1970s Blackmoor and Greyhawk, than from the more GM-driven type that prevails today.

Those are probably in the minority, though.

Quote from: soviet;624286Eh?

Since a storygame is concentrating on the story, the Players will be in conflict over who will be the primary author of that story since even collaborative works must have an editor or leader. While in a tabletop RPG the concentration is on the Player Characters, so the Players will be in conflict with what their PCs are in conflict with and thus the experience is one more directly tied to that POV.

In the example you gave, a Player of yours tried to direct the story by having his character die and you instead arbitrarily decided that it would be only a chance of death, thus diminishing his ability to change the story in the storygame. You exercised the same veto power that you say is wielded too heavily by bad GMs.

Quote from: soviet;624286Eh? Oh, I see, you edited some more questions in after I'd started my reply.

I thought they were appopriate.

Quote from: soviet;6242863) i don't see the distinction.

If all a person has is veto power, than that is the only role for that person. However, there is more to the roles that Players and GMs have in a tabletop RPG than just mere veto power.

Quote from: Phillip;624287I think that not to 'fudge' like that is probably not what most of the "rulesbooks chaining bad GMs to protect us players" crowd would advocate.

Possibly. But the converse is also true that the more freedom that a GM has, the better that GM may run a tabletop RPG. It all depends on the individual GM.

Quote from: Phillip;624287Some no doubt are keen on playing the regulated odds and letting the dice fall as they may. Heck, they might even get a bigger thrill out of a massively multi-player (and often player-versus-player) campaign like 1970s Blackmoor and Greyhawk, than from the more GM-driven type that prevails today.

Those are probably in the minority, though.

I dunno about that.

One of the most entertaining sessions I ever played in was the result of two seperate PC groups in the same campaign area meeting up and battling it out.

Quote from: jeff37923;624290Since a storygame is concentrating on the story, the Players will be in conflict over who will be the primary author of that story since even collaborative works must have an editor or leader. While in a tabletop RPG the concentration is on the Player Characters, so the Players will be in conflict with what their PCs are in conflict with and thus the experience is one more directly tied to that POV.

I'm not sure what any of this is based on, doesn't sound right to me.

Quote from: jeff37923;624290In the example you gave, a Player of yours tried to direct the story by having his character die and you instead arbitrarily decided that it would be only a chance of death, thus diminishing his ability to change the story in the storygame. You exercised the same veto power that you say is wielded too heavily by bad GMs.

No, again I'm not sure where you got all this from. The character tried something very difficult and very dangerous that would also have had significant knock-on effects on the rest of the game if it worked. Due to this we agreed that the failure stakes would be that if he failed the reroll his character would die. The player fully agreed that this should be the case and had every opportunity to back out or renegotiate. Instead he went for it. He rolled the dice and was successful. If he had failed, he would have died. I didn't veto anything.

Quote from: jeff37923;624293P
I dunno about that.

One of the most entertaining sessions I ever played in was the result of two seperate PC groups in the same campaign area meeting up and battling it out.

Do you understand that what I was saying was:

(a) Maybe some advocates of the view you oppose would enjoy (for instance) letting a misjump roll dictate a "TPK" in a context like that for which such rules were originally designed, but...

(b) those are probably a minority among the advocates of that view?

Quote from: soviet;624298No, again I'm not sure where you got all this from. The character tried something very difficult and very dangerous that would also have had significant knock-on effects on the rest of the game if it worked. Due to this we agreed that the failure stakes would be that if he failed the reroll his character would die. The player fully agreed that this should be the case and had every opportunity to back out or renegotiate. Instead he went for it. He rolled the dice and was successful. If he had failed, he would have died. I didn't veto anything.

Effects on the game or effects on the story? Isn't the purpose of a storygame to create a story? So what you and the Player were doing was negotiating the plot of the story.

Quote from: Phillip;624301Do you understand that what I was saying was:

(a) Maybe some advocates of the view you oppose would enjoy (for instance) letting a misjump roll dictate a "TPK" in a context like that for which such rules were originally designed, but...

(b) those are probably a minority among the advocates of that view?

No, I did not understand that. Now I do. The concept seems counter-intuitive because with PCs dead through an arbitrary die roll at the start of a game session, it would seem to suck the fun right out of a game. Indeed, they would be a minority.

Quote from: soviet;624270If one person has a veto over what happens and another person doesn't, the person that doesn't have a veto has a less equal role than the one that does.

Technically the DM isn't the only one with "veto" power.

In principle, a player (or several players) can "veto" the DM by just getting up and walking away from the game, and not coming back.

If the premises the game is being played at is not the personal residence of the DM, then the DM can be "vetoed" by being thrown out of the premises by the owner/renter of the premises.