Quote from: Haffrung;707925I don't recall systems being designed in the 80s to address player distrust of GMs. The solution to a game you didn't like was, as you said, starting your own game or playing with someone else. But judging by discussions on forums these days, and comments by designers themselves, the solution today is to design systems that give less latitude to the GM in order to make players happy. That's a fundamentally different approach to the idea that each table is different because each GM is different.

But when you go of and start your own game with your houserules that eliminate 'those sort of games' you are doing exactly the same thing. The only difference is that now those rules get written down and published,

Quote from: gamerGoyf;708121You're assuming there a vast and meaningful difference what the GM thinks is common sense and what the GM likes, that's usually not the case when you're dealing with real people.

Personally I prefer play the gaming to playing the Game Master.

So, do you think game designers are androids or something? I mean, why place implicit trust in a system designed by gamers but not gamers actually gaming?

The phrase "player skill" is something I find confusing. I'd associate skill with a game like chess, or videogames; specifically, games with a "win" condition.

Now, this is in line with what I understand as the primary gaming culture of the oft-referenced in this thread Gaming Den forums; namely, the concept of playing to the game, wherein role playing is seen as a secondary concern at best compared to the idea of crafting a superior (fighting) character mechanically and attempting to "win" against the scenario, with antagonism represented et al by the GM.

This type of gaming, "Pretty Pony Show", is an alternative approach to RPGs that I largely don't see the point of, as the goals are better/more efficiently accomplished by videogames. I see very little relation between it and the RPGs Ive played nor what I understand about the origins of the hobby (if anything it seems a regression back towards wargaming, as far as the goals and purpose of play. This is emphasized by, bar none, every reference to and consideration regarding PCs referring to combat. 'Balance' is about combat ability, 'skill' is about the winning of combats, etc.

As someone who thinks the point of role-playing games is, well, role-playing, this seems unnecessarily limiting. It's not that I disapprove, people can get thier jollies however they like and it doesn't affect me an iota, but it often makes communication nigh impossible. Effectively, it seems to be a different hobby than the one Ive been involved with for a third of a century or so.

Quote from: TristramEvans;708245This type of gaming, "Pretty Pony Show", is an alternative approach to RPGs that I largely don't see the point of, as the goals are better/more efficiently accomplished by videogames.

Or, like, sports?

Yeah, RPGs have got to be the mushiest possible ground for someone to prove their competitive mettle. Except for, maybe, therapeutic painting or interpretive dance. Yoga, I don't know. I don't get it either.

All of my characters want to "win". It's a basic instinct of anything that lives and self-replicates. They want to take any step they can that will increase their chance of survival and prosperity.

Not all of them define "victory" in the same way. Different people want different things, are motivated by different things. That's where roleplaying comes in.

The problem seems to be that Goyf seems to be both convinced and fixated on the idea that the DM in those examples is Schrodinger Monty Haulling the player. To the point of totally ignoring all evidence that the DM is not.

Now I personally do not agree with some of the examples in the article in question because they do not seem to take into account the degree of failure? A failed low roll of 2 seems to be a disaster even if it had been off by only 1?
That bugs me as it seems to show a lack of thought on the DM, or at least the writers part. Which is at odds with the article's whole idea of the DM thinking things through.

It's a very simple concept: the mechanical rules are not the sole relevant context in the game. Further, the needs of campaign and setting consistency will at times override the mechanics through rulings as the GM's judgment determines. Basically the games approve of GMs favoring certain contexts over others during overlap when it is deemed cohesively necessary.

This assumes trusting your GM to not cobble together some whimsical nightmare where all contexts are bankrupt of their own internal logic, let alone overlap. You cannot supplant all other RPG contexts with primacy to the mechanical one out of fear of being untethered into utter chaos. At some point there has to be a leap of faith with your fellow participants. Rules will never replace trust.

In the end folks it boils down to this. 1974 OD&D has at best a dozen or so hard fast rules for combat. If you want to run a campaign using this rules, what other techniques you have other than rulings?

"Oh but use a more modern system! Some would say. But that is missing the point which is that the group wants to play OD&D.

"Oh but it is going to suck because everything is at the whim of the referee!"

Yes that the consquence of OD&D. But many focus too much on the bad ones and forget that that there are good referee who are fair and  use common sense.

For the Old School Primer was instrumental in learning to run a fun OD&D campaign. I had mastered GURPS and other detailed RPGS and wanted to master the original game. The Primer help immensely but I can also say that it is a particular style that will not be suited for everybody. And for myself I greatly enjoy OD&D but I still run GURPS, Harnmaster, and other games of similar detail. And I don't plan to quit any time soon.

Quote from: Imp;708246Yeah, RPGs have got to be the mushiest possible ground for someone to prove their competitive mettle. Except for, maybe, therapeutic painting or interpretive dance. Yoga, I don't know. I don't get it either.

Competitive interpretive dance, hmm. Now that wrestling has been sidelined in the Olympics there's a chance to advocate this into the realm of sport. Breakdancer v. voguist v. pop locker v. glowstick ninja... all fighting for the gold. Solid gold. This idea needs an online petition!
:cool:

Quote from: Opaopajr;708275Competitive interpretive dance, hmm. Now that wrestling has been sidelined in the Olympics there's a chance to advocate this into the realm of sport. Breakdancer v. voguist v. pop locker v. glowstick ninja... all fighting for the gold. Solid gold. This idea needs an online petition!
:cool:

You could also make it a form of combat for rpg play a la Zoolander.

" They're Breakdance Fighting!"

:rotfl:

(adding Herbie Hancock to list of combat music artists)

Quote from: Haffrung;707691Thing is, I can't fathom playing an RPG with a referee I didn't trust to make sound judgements. I'd either GM myself, or not play.

Sweet Crom's hairy NUTSACK, yes!!!!!  If you don't trust the referee, DON'T PLAY WITH THE FUCKER!

That, plus "What happened when you, or the referee, were 14 does not constitute a need to change the rules of D&D" would blissfully eliminate about 90% of what's said on the Intarwebs about rpgs.

Quote from: TristramEvans;708245The phrase "player skill" is something I find confusing. I'd associate skill with a game like chess, or videogames; specifically, games with a "win" condition.

Now, this is in line with what I understand as the primary gaming culture of the oft-referenced in this thread Gaming Den forums; namely, the concept of playing to the game, wherein role playing is seen as a secondary concern at best compared to the idea of crafting a superior (fighting) character mechanically and attempting to "win" against the scenario, with antagonism represented et al by the GM.

That's a very narrow and thoroughly fuckwitted definition of player skill they gave you.

A big part of "player skill" was actually "being experienced in CHAINMAIL."  Of course you all had spears, and once in close melee the first rank switched to swords while the second rank fought with spears.

Another big part of "player skill" was listen and think.  There is a carved gargoyle head with a small lever inside the mouth.  What do you do?

Or "you run into the room full of gems.  You're standing in gems up to your ankles."

"I yell and scream and throw gems up in the air.  I'm rich."

"Yeah, it's more gems than you've ever seen.  You're standing in gems up to your shins."

Real example.  The player drowned in the gem-covered quicksand, ignoring "You're standing in gems up to your knees... your thighs... your hips... your waist..."

Listen, pay fucking attention, and THINK.  That's "player skill."

Quote from: Old Geezer;708282Listen, pay fucking attention, and THINK.  That's "player skill."

Sadly this kind of player skill is in decline. Some of the blame can fall on modern rpg design but not all of it.

Many modern rpgs are designed to mitigate (or eliminate) the effect of the actual ability of the player on the outcome of the game. This begins with the idea that every fucking bit of gameplay that means anything is mechanized with die rolls. This has the long term effect of training players to ignore what is happening until die rolls are called for.

The game world and what is taking place therein is "boring" until there is something to roll for because nothing of consequence can happen without making those rolls.

All of this horseshit is in the name of ensuring the the abilities of the character, and not the player determine success in the game.

Its a pretty good reason why players are so fond of fiddling with their phones or tablets instead of paying attention to the game because there IS no payoff to paying attention when EVERYTHING is going to boil down to "so what do I need to roll". Just focus in on those moments when you can have an actual impact on the game and watch Youtube the rest of the time.

This is why I prefer games that support both rulings, and the opportunity for player engagement and cleverness to have a significant effect on the outcome of a game.

Quote from: Old Geezer;708282That's a very narrow and thoroughly fuckwitted definition of player skill they gave you.

A big part of "player skill" was actually "being experienced in CHAINMAIL."  Of course you all had spears, and once in close melee the first rank switched to swords while the second rank fought with spears.

Another big part of "player skill" was listen and think.  There is a carved gargoyle head with a small lever inside the mouth.  What do you do?

Or "you run into the room full of gems.  You're standing in gems up to your ankles."

"I yell and scream and throw gems up in the air.  I'm rich."

"Yeah, it's more gems than you've ever seen.  You're standing in gems up to your shins."

Real example.  The player drowned in the gem-covered quicksand, ignoring "You're standing in gems up to your knees... your thighs... your hips... your waist..."

Listen, pay fucking attention, and THINK.  That's "player skill."

Indeed, though Im not sure skill is even necessary to describe it. I'd call that "player sense" myself, or simply being clever.

Quote from: TristramEvans;708334Indeed, though Im not sure skill is even necessary to describe it. I'd call that "player sense" myself, or simply being clever.

"Think like the DM" used to be a valid strategy in RPGs.

"I know Dave loves Grimtooths Traps and has been reading through it recently. So this place is likely loaded to the gills with insanely deadly deathtraps." It was.

"Jan just learned archery. Bet all those damn kobolds we heard are around here are armed with short bows today and we all get perforated..." They were. We did...