Quote from: One Horse Town;749191I think that the actual-dick DMs and actual-dick players spoken about on internet gaming forums are mainly hypothetical outside of the odd convention game...

Oh do I wish that were true.

Im probably not the only one whos had games with either dick DMs or had to DM to dick players.

Oddly I've never had a DM or player named Dick yet.

What the net does though is it magnifies these cases and worse, it gives a soapbox for those who were totally freaked out by the experience and are now the equivalent of Prohibitionists. The bad DM touched me here, ergo all DMs are bad and must be curbed lest they touch some other innocent Player.

So some DM makes a snap ruling for jumping in session A using DEX check, and in the next case has a percentile roll. This is evil and must be stopped before it damages the players fragile snowflake. So lets chain down the DM with more and more rules so the players can say "look here it says this right here!" and then bitch when the DM does the same to them.
And then flip that around for the DM vs player side.

And then come at it from the other side of the fence where too many rules are seen as a poison to gameplay.

There just isnt any solution because every table plays different and whats fine over there would freak you out over here. And someone somewhere HAS had a bad experience with rules heavy, rules light, etc.

Play the game and try to remember it IS a game meant to be worked out at the table as needed. A level of freedom few other game types enjoy.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;749196Again, as a DM, I would like to think that I have better things to do with my time at the table than make adjudications and "rulings" (because apparently somehow on-the-fly decisions are different from statements in the book in terms of mechanical impact).

Whether or not the DM is a smart guy or not should not factor into this discussion. If there is a gap in the rules, obviously it falls to the DM to adjudicate. I am saying that my preference is that those gaps be few and far between, or if they are more common, have those gaps coverable by extension of the rules (which would, in essence, be a "ruling" by the DM).

Different approaches.

AD&D for example covers the holes in the rules with stat checks where possible. And suggests to do so in the DMG even.

Some will want harder coded solutions, some will be fine with that or whatever else the DM thinks up. Or the player thinks up because this is not exactly limited to the DM's imagination only.

For you. Coming up with a rule on the fly is a hassle. You arent alone in that.
For me. Coming up with a rule on the fly is easy. I am not alone in that.

I happen to like having lots of rules if only because I can look at how the designer thinks so-n-so should be done and from there I can judge if its useful to me or not. I also like rules light games.

And even when the designer provides alot of rules. There is no guarantee the GM wont jettison something and replace it with something THEY think is better. D&D is the posterchild for that.

Quote from: Omega;749478Different approaches.

AD&D for example covers the holes in the rules with stat checks where possible. And suggests to do so in the DMG even.

Some will want harder coded solutions, some will be fine with that or whatever else the DM thinks up. Or the player thinks up because this is not exactly limited to the DM's imagination only.

For you. Coming up with a rule on the fly is a hassle. You arent alone in that.
For me. Coming up with a rule on the fly is easy. I am not alone in that.

I happen to like having lots of rules if only because I can look at how the designer thinks so-n-so should be done and from there I can judge if its useful to me or not. I also like rules light games.

And even when the designer provides alot of rules. There is no guarantee the GM wont jettison something and replace it with something THEY think is better. D&D is the posterchild for that.

It's too bad that the Like feature isn't enabled on this forum.  I'd Like the fuck out of this one.

Quote from: Gabriel2;749398However, I do have one question for all the honest participants.  Let's say you were looking at a game list at the LGS.  An advertisement for an "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition" game catches your eye.  You make up a character and show up at the appointed place and time.

It becomes immediately apparent that your character sheet is an extraneous element.  The DM doesn't use any of the AD&D rules, not ability scores, not armor class charts, not saving throws, not spells per day, nothing.  Everything he does is a simple ruling on his part.  No dice or stats are being used.  You simply say what you want to do and the DM decides completely in his head if your character does it or not.

Is that still "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition?"  Is that still within your criteria for a "game."  If the GM were a "bad" GM, would the answers to those questions still be the same?  If the game were billed as "Experience freeform adventure in the homebrew world of Ixion!" would the answer change, or would you not even attend?

1: No. If its purely freeform or storytelling then its stopped being AD&D.
2: Yes. It is still a game of sorts.
3: Yes. Bad gameplay is irrelevant to the playstyle. A bad DM or player is not the game.
4: 50/50. The game is billed as a freeform so it would not feel not like a freeform. It is still a game of sorts. Id give it a whirl.

And I'll add onto that question.
What if its the above stated freeform. But set in Greyhawk for example. Is it AD&D then?
Personal answer is. Still no.

Possibly a question worth its own thread. What is your threshold where changes to a game make it no longer the origin game? How much is too much? How little is too little?

Quote from: gleichman;749468Browsing threads like this is worst than listening to blind men talking about elephants. It's painful.

An elephant is very like a long, tight, slimy tunnel!

Quote from: David Johansen;749498An elephant is very like a long, tight, slimy tunnel!

An elephant is warm and mushy!

Quote from: gleichman;749468And frankly I don't think *anyone* on this site or most others of its nature has been exposed to all of them.

So what is this site that the enlightened inhabit?

Quote from: robiswrong;749470So what game is it that is a rules heavy game that is "well-designed"?

The one that Gleichman plays of course.

Quote from: Old Geezer;749500An elephant is warm and mushy!

No, an elephant looks like warm echoes.

Quote from: aspiringlich;749183Crude and disgusting imagery aside ... do you not realize that you do exactly the same thing when you want the rulebook to tell you what you can and can't do? You simply substitute the authority of the game designers for the authority of the DM, but it's no less an appeal to someone else's authority. Give up on your pretense at autonomy as a player: whether's it's Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet, or the DM at your table, you're someone else's bitch.

What?  So?  Yes every rule-set has a box for people to play in.  Congratulations you figured something out.:cheerleader:
Yes I would much rather appeal to an authority only seen on paper than appeal to authority that is sitting across from me.

Quote from: robiswrong;749198And the general form of the rules in a rules light game is something like this:

1) PC declares action
2) GM determines and communicates likelihood of success (and failure condition if not obvious)
3) PC decides to continue or not.

I would say it's
1) GM describes 'scene'
2) PC asks questions
3) GM answers questions
4) PC declares action
5) GM determines and communicates likelihood of success (and failure condition if not obvious)
6) PC decides to continue or not.

To me the difference is(from another thread)

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;747223I like many things about d20 system-based games, but I get an ear bleed when I look at the skill sections. Shit like this:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/climb.html#_climb

1) GM describes 'scene': very rough wall has ledges to hold on to, but is slippery
2) PC asks questions
3) GM answers questions
4) PC declares action
5) GM determines and communicates likelihood of success (and failure condition if not obvious)
6) PC decides to continue or not.

or sense we have the DC and mods known to everyone;
1) GM describes 'scene': very rough wall has ledges to hold on to, but is slippery
4) PC declares action to continue or not. Because they know it's a DC 15 by the description.


For me, it's the 20 questions that bothers me.  It slows down play and all to often you see the 'shit didn't think of that' look from the DM when a certain question is asked.  Yes, I know every Dm here has never done that :rolleyes:

Quote from: Sommerjon;750347Yes I would much rather appeal to an authority only seen on paper than appeal to authority that is sitting across from me.

That's nice.

Hey, this Monty Cook guy has some interesting thoughts on D&D:
http://www.montecook.com/celebrating-40-years-of-dd/

This part is enlightening:

OD&D showcases what I really love about the game, and makes it all the more clear that all the other stuff–skill systems, complex monster designs, a vast array of character options and complex combat rules, etc.–is very much secondary. That stuff, which we so often refer to as "crunch," is actually "fluff." It's cool, it's fun, it's interesting, but it's also ultimately unnecessary.

It's almost like he realized some weaknesses in modern, overly complex, design.

Quote from: Sommerjon;750347Yes I would much rather appeal to an authority only seen on paper than appeal to authority that is sitting across from me.

This is actually the best argument you've given.  If you have an issue with the judgement of a referee *as a thing*, then you do, and the more rules, the better.  Of course, that's utterly *subjective*.

Ultimately, the GM sets the difficulty of climbing a wall.  Whether he does it by saying "it's 15", or does it by saying all the modifiers, he's still doing it.

The only way that's not true is if you're asking about the modifiers indirectly, and want to not tip off the GM as to what you're thinking of doing.  To me, that's indicative of dysfunctional play.

Quote from: Sommerjon;7503471) GM describes 'scene': very rough wall has ledges to hold on to, but is slippery
2) PC asks questions
3) GM answers questions
4) PC declares action
5) GM determines and communicates likelihood of success (and failure condition if not obvious)
6) PC decides to continue or not.

or sense we have the DC and mods known to everyone;
1) GM describes 'scene': very rough wall has ledges to hold on to, but is slippery
4) PC declares action to continue or not. Because they know it's a DC 15 by the description.

So, here's the thing.  In the second case, the following has to happen for the player to know the DC:

1) The GM has to declare all the bits that modify the base DC for any possible action for all visible elements in the 'scene'.
2) The GM must be limited to elements that have codified modifiers
3) The player must either have memorized, or look up the appropriate modifiers and calculate them together.
4) Any action outside of the well-known/predetermined actions *still* requires GM adjudication.

It's the difference between "You enter a rough, stone room with a well in the middle of it.  You see a grate set into the ceiling" and "You enter a room.  The walls appear to be rough stone without significant cracks made of sandstone.  The well in the center of the room is smooth marble with a light level of moisture and moss.  There is a grate in the ceiling that appears to be made of cast iron, and has light rusting on it."

It's really not a matter at this point of whether the modifiers are codified in advance or not.  It's a matter of how much info-dump occurs in the initial description.  Using Fate, I could just as easily say "The walls are rough stone, it would probably be climbable by an Average climber."

Realistically, in more rules-light games I've run, steps 2-4 kind of get compressed.  "How difficult would it be to climb the wall?"  "Eh, it's a pretty rough wall, but no major cracks or anything.  It doesn't look any harder than Average".  It helps if you trust the GM to just ask the question directly, rather than trying to ask all of the ancillary questions that lead to the difficulty.  I can understand wanting to do that if you're afraid the GM will put the kibosh on any plan the "don't like" by using arbitrarily high DCs, but again, that's a "dick GM" issue more than anything.

Quote from: Sommerjon;750347For me, it's the 20 questions that bothers me.  It slows down play and all to often you see the 'shit didn't think of that' look from the DM when a certain question is asked.  Yes, I know every Dm here has never done that :rolleyes:

Every GM (I find it interesting that you always use the DM term) gets the "shit didn't think of that" look on occasion.  And guess what, those looks tend to occur when players think of crap outside of the usual actions.

As far as 20 questions goes, as I've said, that's really not a rules-light or rules-heavy thing.  It's more a matter of how much detail is given in the first info-dump.  You prefer more detail in the first info-dump, and that's fine.

As an example, I could just describe the walls as "stone", and leave players to query what kind of stone, roughness, etc., even in a rules-heavy game.

"You enter a room.  There's a well on the floor and a grate up near the ceiling"
"What are the walls made of?"
"Stone."
"Rough or smooth?"
"Fairly rough."
"Does it have any significant cracks or handholds?"
"Nope."

And now you're still assuming the GM has given enough info to accurately determine the DC, or there's going to be an argument regarding the calculated DC.

"How can it be DC 18?  The modifiers only add to 15!"
"You didn't ask if there was any plant growth.  There's slick moss on the wall."

The kind of fundamental problem in this case is the GM being a dick and not giving sufficient information to the players.  And the ultimate "sufficient information" is the difficulty of whatever it is they're trying to do.

And actions outside of the predicted actions will still require questions.  "Can I get a grappling hook on the grate and pull it down?" or, for the indirect approach "How big are the holes in the grate?"

(BTW, I'm really not arguing against rules-heavy games.  They're fine.  There's a number of them I like.  I just don't buy that they 'solve' problems around areas like communication.)

Yeah, I need to Agree here about the 20 questions.  Sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't, but it shows up at all levels, rules heavy or light.  ANd a GM has to be pretty ready and willing.  Part of the job.

"Shit I didn't think of that" is WHY I referee.

If the day ever comes when I expect everything my players do, I'm getting new players.  If the day ever comes when nothing any players ever does surprises me, I'm quitting this hobby for good.

Making shit up is the fun part of this stupidass hobby, and having to do so at a moment's notice is the most fun part of making shit up.  It's like having to respond to your opponents' moves on a wargame table, but even more challenging!