Quote from: CRKrueger;925743If you tinker, jiggle, juggle, massage and manipulate, then you are trying to make things fun for us.  If you hang back, and keep the thumb off the scale, then we're making fun for ourselves.

You have heard of why you don't assume, right?

No "I'm not trying to make things fun for us."  I'm trying to make sure everyone is maximally engaged the maximum amount of time.
I've been witness to too many sessions/campaigns/games(however the hell you want to describe it) stall/stutter/fail/fall flat(however the hell you want to describe it) because a dipshit or three clings to some mantra about the true way to play.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925743"Operating counter to RAW" does not mean "Operating counter to RAW differently whenever I wish to generate a different result."  Not the same thing at all.

This has dick-all to do with RAW.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925743Can't do it, Hoss.  If I'm trying to catch an NPC, the NPC's rolls and my rolls determine I caught that NPC and you let the NPC escape simply because you didn't want me to catch him...you just cheated me.  Plainly, simply, cheated me.

Maybe you shouldn't consider this a competition.

Quote from: Spinachcat;925666I can cheat all damn day, but I prefer not to. I will however do WTF it takes to make sure a 4 hour convention game gets its beginning, middle and end before that final hour chimes.

In a four hour convention game I will accept, and sometimes even welcome the GM flat out saying "there is nothing else significant here, do you want to move on now?"
But, a convention game is a special case. There is no "continued next session..." In regular campaign play I will happily let the players waste as much time as like, chasing red herrings and going down rabbit holes. If nothing else it gives me time to think about what they have expressed interest in and develop some possible future hooks.
 
As far as GM tells, many players will instant alert on "the room seems/appears to be empty" much more than on "the room is empty".  Or the NPC who gets described in detail.  As a GM I have taught myself to occasionally describe insignificant details, just to keep it from being obvious that something is important because it's detailed.

Quote from: Sommerjon;925746No "I'm not trying to make things fun for us."  I'm trying to make sure everyone is maximally engaged the maximum amount of time.
I've been witness to too many sessions/campaigns/games(however the hell you want to describe it) stall/stutter/fail/fall flat(however the hell you want to describe it) because a dipshit or three clings to some mantra about the true way to play.

If they actually played according to the "mantra" you claim they are sticking to, then to them it's not "stalled", they're just not doing what you want them to do.  Or, if the game is really stalled because they claim they want freedom, but don't know what to do with it, and want to be pulled along, just as long as they have the illusion of freedom, then that's should be easy to figure out and then dump them, trick them, or change expectations.

Quote from: Sommerjon;925746This has dick-all to do with RAW.

That was Grove basically making a false equivalency between House Rules (which everyone does) and "Setting aside rules willy-nilly-at-whim-when-needed-to-achieve-the-story", which is his M.O.  One has nothing to do with the other, which is what I stated.

Quote from: Sommerjon;925746Maybe you shouldn't consider this a competition.

If you are going to overrule dice for no in-setting reason, simply for "drama", "pacing", "because you feel like it" why even bother with the sham of having them?  Just tell us a story.

I don't care if you're "GM as Entertainer" or "GM as Referee".  What I don't want is you pretending to be one, but actually being the other.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925750If they actually played according to the "mantra" you claim they are sticking to, then to them it's not "stalled", they're just not doing what you want them to do.  Or, if the game is really stalled because they claim they want freedom, but don't know what to do with it, and want to be pulled along, just as long as they have the illusion of freedom, then that's should be easy to figure out and then dump them, trick them, or change expectations.

What mantra is that?

Quote from: CRKrueger;925750That was Grove basically making a false equivalency between House Rules (which everyone does) and "Setting aside rules willy-nilly-at-whim-when-needed-to-achieve-the-story", which is his M.O.  One has nothing to do with the other, which is what I stated.

No that is you worshiping a set of standards you refuse to think can not be changed when the need arises.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925750If you are going to overrule dice for no in-setting reason, simply for "drama", "pacing", "because you feel like it" why even bother with the sham of having them?  Just tell us a story.

There's the hyperbole.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925750I don't care if you're "GM as Entertainer" or "GM as Referee".  What I don't want is you pretending to be one, but actually being the other.

Because I am both.

Quote from: Skarg;925745especially when they think it's part of their job to have things go a certain way, and they're chugging along but then have to switch modes when facing situations that weren't as they expected, or that they have to make up instead or just doing their script, or, yes, when the combat isn't playing out the way they want or expect. You know how little kids sound when they're lying about not having pooped their pants or not having had their cookie yet, or having done their homework? Some GM's have a tinge of that when they announce some of their combat results that happen to be about delicate events, and some of those GM's think it's part of their job so they don't even try to hide it sometimes, and/or talk about it outside play.

Quote from: Skarg;925745Combined with the tells of many even quite good GM's I've played with who switch between story mode and real play mode and something in-between, I'd think that at least sometimes, I'd have a strong sense of it.

Quote from: Skarg;925745And yes, for GM's who do some mix, there are often many tells, especially when they don't think there's much/any reason to try especially hard to hide the difference.

So...

• The guy who's not trying to hide anything won't have anything hidden from you.
• The guy who thinks it's his job to manipulate things and says so openly will have his manipulations detected.
• The ones who have the guile of children being potty-trained can't defeat your acumen.
• The GM's who habitually drop into Story Mode and develop a pattern will have that pattern detected.

I wasn't talking about these GM's.  Well I was when I said they "sucked at it".

Quote from: Skarg;925745If you mean that a GM who also gets that there is an important difference and who focuses on trying to not give it away, and is good at fudging and hiding it, then yeah you're probably right.

Yes, this GM is what I mean.

Quote from: Sommerjon;925752There's the hyperbole.

"Worshipping" isn't hyperbole?
Still, I'll grant it's a spectrum on one side between Grove, who fudges whatever, whenever, and his players know it and don't care, and the maniacs of The Gaming Den, who claim if a system can't be played with computers and no people then it's Mother-May-I.  Everyone else lies somewhere in the middle.

However, I contend that if you don't want to abide by the die roll, engineer it so the die roll does not happen.  In the specific example I was referring to, Grove admitted he fucked-up by telegraphing that NPC, and by setting it up so the player could catch him via the rules.  Once he did that, and he rolled lousy and the player rolled great, the only way to avoid that outcome was to cheat.  To take the exceptional performance of the PC's skill and nullify it.  Don't do that.  If you don't want to rely on the outcome of the dice, don't go to the dice.  If you do go to the dice and don't get the expected outcome, own it, eat it, and roll with it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;925752Because I am both.

Granted, but not when I roll a 20, you roll a 1 and I still miss because you want the NPC to get away because the scene later that is SO COOL will be ruined if he doesn't get away.  Then you shouldn't be the entertainer, you should be the referee and not pretend to be refereeing if you wanna storytell.

Quote from: rgrove0172;925736I still detect an underlying current within many of the posts that seem to indicate some sort of competitive dynamic between players and GM. I know there are some games designed this way. My group enjoys the occasional game of Descent which is absolutely a competition. Most roleplaying games however aren't. The GM is there to facilitate and challenge, provoke and entertain, judge and manage, not to beat anybody. He has absolute power in making the game what it is therefore he can kill at a whim or make the whole party Kings! I cant say in all my days gaming the idea of the GM cheating ever even came to mind. Players cheating? Sure, Ive caught a few trying to hedge rolls, add modifiers that weren't there, conveniently forget hindering conditions etc. They are after all, competing against the system and setting to accomplish something. The GM however? His only goal is to make sure everyone has a good time! ...

Speaking for myself, the places where in this thread I refer to cheating and deception, I don't mean for the purposes of competition. I mean for the purposes of trying to avoid an unwanted result, even if to improve how "good" a time is had. I would also add that it seems like a case of cheating oneself out of a better experience, by undermining one's own play style and not confronting and doing something about what's going on, to make for a better game.

And all that, I mean from a place of understanding that people should play as they like to, and that there is a wide range of options, and that I have and sometimes continue to use some of the methods being discussed. My goal in this thread is to communicate that I see value in consistent rules and playing out situations without bending stuff, and trying to show there can be value in that, to people who either don't seem to get that there is value there, or that not doing that is entirely equivalent to doing it. From experience, one of my main interests in gaming, and preferred styles for gaming, is about setting up situations and rules and playing them out without GM fudging or input from meta-stuff, be it player notions, GM notions, narrative notions, or whatever. I appreciate the differences, both as a player and as a GM. There are trade-offs and limits, but it seems to me there are major differences and value to playing in/with/out an actual detailed and consistent situation with fixed rules and no conceits that warp the situation or the rules or outcomes.

Quote from: rgrove0172;925736I still detect an underlying current within many of the posts that seem to indicate some sort of competitive dynamic between players and GM.

I know there are some games designed this way. My group enjoys the occasional game of Descent which is absolutely a competition.

1: Its how some players try to play RPGs. Like it was a board game you could win either by amassing the most loot, killing other PCs, or constantly one upping/screwing with the DM. Then theres the DMs who seem to be in it only to see how many characters they can kill. Hence the adversarial mindset some players have. This has been around a long long time. Neither are good play styles as its rare everyones on board for a slaughterfest and theres ample evidence if just how much players have despised it.

2: Thats because Descent and other board games like it are not RPGs.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925657Just want to make sure I get this right:

Random Encounter - (Rolls Dice) - 75 - Blink Dog. You guys knew it was really supposed to be a Beholder and the GM pulled the Punch, eh? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

Attack the Giant - Rolls dice - that's 54 HPs total, it dies.  You guys know the giant really had 64 hps and the GM is taking it easy on you, or 44 and he's being a dick? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

Three rounds into combat, the GM starts rolling dice for some reason...three rounds later, a Woodsman Patrol comes to save your ass from Beastmen.  You can tell whether the Woodsmen were there, and he was rolling to see if they heard and how long it would take to get there, or if he decided to help out a little? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

You make a successful perception check going through some woods - you find the tracks of orcs you're hunting.  You can tell I suppose that the GM moved the orc lair ten miles over, across the river and on the other side of a hill you just happen to be near because he wants to finish up early because he just got a Booty Call? - Complete and Utter Horseshit.

Protip: If the GM's style, delivery, timing, etc. changes when he's fudging - he sucks at it.

I'm with the play it straight and don't cheat club, and I castigate Grove mightily, but the idea that a good GM can't hide a cheat - that's just Batshit Fucking Loco.

I'm not sure you have gotten this right.

You are correct, that if you take any one of your examples in total isolation, I doubt any player is going to detect the cheat if the GM hides it well. But to even examine things in this way entirely misses the point. When the GM has an agenda, there is a cluster of cheats in the same direction. That's when a pattern becomes discernible to a highly perceptive player.

Quote from: Skarg;925779Speaking for myself, the places where in this thread I refer to cheating and deception, I don't mean for the purposes of competition. I mean for the purposes of trying to avoid an unwanted result, even if to improve how "good" a time is had. I would also add that it seems like a case of cheating oneself out of a better experience, by undermining one's own play style and not confronting and doing something about what's going on, to make for a better game.

And all that, I mean from a place of understanding that people should play as they like to, and that there is a wide range of options, and that I have and sometimes continue to use some of the methods being discussed. My goal in this thread is to communicate that I see value in consistent rules and playing out situations without bending stuff, and trying to show there can be value in that, to people who either don't seem to get that there is value there, or that not doing that is entirely equivalent to doing it. From experience, one of my main interests in gaming, and preferred styles for gaming, is about setting up situations and rules and playing them out without GM fudging or input from meta-stuff, be it player notions, GM notions, narrative notions, or whatever. I appreciate the differences, both as a player and as a GM. There are trade-offs and limits, but it seems to me there are major differences and value to playing in/with/out an actual detailed and consistent situation with fixed rules and no conceits that warp the situation or the rules or outcomes.

I completely understand and agree there is value in every approach, completely hands off included.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925766"Worshipping" isn't hyperbole?

No it isn't hyperbole.
Worship:

• reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
• adoring reverence or regard
• the object of adoring reverence or regard.

Quote from: CRKrueger;925766Still, I'll grant it's a spectrum on one side between Grove, who fudges whatever, whenever, and his players know it and don't care, and the maniacs of The Gaming Den, who claim if a system can't be played with computers and no people then it's Mother-May-I.  Everyone else lies somewhere in the middle.

However, I contend that if you don't want to abide by the die roll, engineer it so the die roll does not happen.  In the specific example I was referring to, Grove admitted he fucked-up by telegraphing that NPC, and by setting it up so the player could catch him via the rules.  Once he did that, and he rolled lousy and the player rolled great, the only way to avoid that outcome was to cheat.  To take the exceptional performance of the PC's skill and nullify it.  Don't do that.  If you don't want to rely on the outcome of the dice, don't go to the dice.  If you do go to the dice and don't get the expected outcome, own it, eat it, and roll with it.

See this is you paying honor to the sacredness of the d20.
Hell you even bold, underline and italics your reverence.

Look at what you said there.   What skill was exceptional by the player, rolling well?  

Quote from: CRKrueger;925766Granted, but not when I roll a 20, you roll a 1 and I still miss because you want the NPC to get away because the scene later that is SO COOL will be ruined if he doesn't get away.  Then you shouldn't be the entertainer, you should be the referee and not pretend to be refereeing if you wanna storytell.

Referee; the dumbest title ever for someone in charge of running a game.

Are you the dipshit player who constantly needs to roll to validate your gaming penis?

Quote from: Skarg;925779Speaking for myself, the places where in this thread I refer to cheating and deception, I don't mean for the purposes of competition. I mean for the purposes of trying to avoid an unwanted result, even if to improve how "good" a time is had. I would also add that it seems like a case of cheating oneself out of a better experience, by undermining one's own play style and not confronting and doing something about what's going on, to make for a better game.

What would be this conjecturally better experience be?

Blimey.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]476[/ATTACH]

Quote from: One Horse Town;925898Blimey.

I thought you didn't give a fuck?

Quote from: Sommerjon;925899I thought you didn't give a fuck?

If you can tell me what that quote in your signature is in relation to i might be able to answer. Bit creepy that you've carried it around for years tbh.

Quote from: Sommerjon;925889

Quote from: SkargSpeaking for myself, ... I would also add that it seems like a case of cheating oneself out of a better experience, by undermining one's own play style and not confronting and doing something about what's going on, to make for a better game.

What would be this conjecturally better experience be?

For one thing, staying clear and truthful and keeping agreements about what a group of people is doing. For another, getting to play a game about the game situation, and not one about pretending to be playing a game about the game situation, but really having the GM force the course and results according to things that have nothing to do with the situation, thus making it no longer a game about that situation. For another, the challenge of facing dangerous, interesting, challenging, otherworldly and wild situations and make decisions that actually relate to those situations, and see what happens, as opposed to seeing what the GM forced to happen because he thinks his notions of what's cool or fun or dramatic or clever are better than the situation supposedly in play, often without even telling the players which is which. For another, not having to wonder whether what you do or how you do it actually has any particular effect on the outcome. For another, not having to figure out how to work the GM since you know that's what you're really doing.

Also there's the situation I described above, where I'd been GM'ing by the rules & dice for years, and then I once saved a player by deus ex machina fiat, and it called into question for me everything I'd done up till then. I wasn't sure what I'd've done if it happened earlier, or what I'd do in future, and that seemed to invalidate the whole idea of playing a game as opposed to playing make believe.

Of course it's subjective, but when players and GMs actively deny there's any value or difference in not fudging and deceiving about what's going on, and/or almost never play otherwise, I wonder how they'd know.

Also I wonder when people feel this way, what the motive is to conceal it and act as if there were no deception or fudging? Is it not that they too feel there would be value in there being a real detailed & consistent game world to explore that has logic that isn't just being dreamed up by the GM according to what seems cool at the moment? And/or that ideally they wouldn't have to fudge die rolls because all results were interesting and fun?

For me, both as GM and as player, when there is a consistent world and rules in play it's an entirely different kind of game that involves entirely different mindsets, versus the GM making things up and changing results. To me, it remains a game up to when the GM alters results and situations (or railroads), at which point there's an intermission and a new game situation gets presented... When the GM hides or is unclear whether the rules and situation are really being used or not, the players don't know if they're playing a game (where there choices result in consistent effects), or if the game is actually being altered by the GM. I'd rather stay in an actual game situation as much as possible. I don't want to be trying to actually understand a situation that isn't really there because the GM just has predetermined events in mind that'll happen whether I do something clever or stupid. I don't want to figure out what to do to survive a deadly tactical situation, only to realize the GM is going to let us all live and triumph even if we just say nonsense about how we do cool surreal nonsense we saw in an anime.

I usually prefer to play a game with consistent cause & effect and chances of things happening that reflect the situation as if there were no GM/gods/rule-o-cool/egotists/dramatic-sensibilities/genre-conventions/TV-show-directors/whatever altering what happens for reasons that are not about what exists in the game situation.

Personally, I'm annoyed by lazy films and TV shows where it's painfully clear that things happen and people are being killed or not based on drama and other nonsense, to the point that there is no illusion of the situation being something worth much thought or even the actors behaving like the danger isn't really there, and the way they act is based on the TV logic rather than anything that makes sense. Even comparing to what I consider much less lazy and better done films/TV/books/plays, there is often what seems to me a severe laziness, apathy, and low quality that shows the glaring symptom of seeming forced and inauthentic. In really well-done drama, I can get sucked in even though there is a script because the author, director, and actors developed things enough, take them seriously enough, that it is about the experience of being in the actual situation and facing the uncertainty and choices of those situations as if they were real and their outcomes not known nor controlled in favor of main characters or genre conventions or whatever "meta" considerations that are outside the drama and should not from character perspective exist or have any weight at all. Seems like a parallel sort of thing to me.