Quote from: Mr. GC;589336Right, a literary character. I was right then.

Yup congrats you haven't read any books but you have heard of them
He is an excellent D&D character model for a certain sort of game.

QuoteThose things both still involve combat and don't work in D&D.

Yes they do, well they don't have to but I have beenplaying games liek that for 30 years so ... sorry if i don't take your word for it ... but its just a playstyle choice.

QuoteDoesn't matter. A number between 0% and 100% are.

So you are saying some times there will be monsters that want to kill you. Yes not sure you will be running though. Depends what you elect to do and where and why right?

QuoteSo would you say it was a player skill then, and not something your character was doing?

Now this is actually an intersting point and the answer is sort of. You need to have the brains and cunning to play Flashman sucessfully but you have to be playing a flashman sort of character to use the brains and cunning in that way. I say Flashman, Cugel the Clever is a very similar character (he is another literary character by the way).
So the personality of the character allows you to use player skills because they are skills the PC would have as well. Its a bit like a biologist playing in a modern espinoage game as a biologist and using his player skill becuase there is a cross over with the PC skill.

QuoteMoney is a factor of WBL which is a factor of killing things... it's safe to say ineffective characters are poor.

Either way, if your character is "hires better characters to do the adventure for him" why aren't they the PCs?

Money is not always a result of killing things no. You can marry the princess, win at the lottery get a job as a basket weaver and corner the decorative basket market .... Don;t think the guys that run IKEA ever killed anyone, although i might be wrong.

And you are hiring specialists for certain tasks nothign wrong with that. from a combat strategy perspective sometimes a longsword is the right weapon sometimes its a crossbow sometimes its a gang of cutthroats and sometimes its the body of little girl in the right bedroom at the right time.

QuoteNo, but since he's buddy buddy with the King I'm sure far more morally agreeable arrangements can be made that still give that party that map... and they don't have to take an otherwise useless character to do it.

except its a quest and you travelled over seas etc etc ... and Flashman is far from useless in the right setting.

QuoteLolwut. Did you seriously just call being aware of how spells function - something that characters can explicitly do without prior direct experience metagaming?

Let me guess - you're also not allowed to know that you should avoid close combat with most melee brutes even if you wandered into full attack range and got one rounded by them?

You see you really can't understand... this conversation is a meta game conversation... we are talking about games and playstyles and choices that is meta-gaming the discussion of playing games.
So the fact that you can't move up the stack from talking specific rules to talking about why people make certain in game choices due to their own desires for what sort of game they want, the discussion of the discussion of gaming if you like, is interesting. You immediately default to a particular interation of a particular game system you are familiar with.
I would guess you are very much concrete-sequential ?

QuoteI am a competitive gamer (as if you didn't already know that) and my job rewards a similar talent set (particularly analysis and efficiency assessment).

I asked for other hobbies or is this it?
Not a collector? I would have thought you would be a collector.
Actuarial? I know a fair few IT guys you have a lot in common with.

QuoteThey are not. All you have to do is ask yourself "What kind of person would take on a very dangerous job and not be good at it?" And the answer is "A stupid or insane one." So unless you are roleplaying a stupid or insane character, you should be roleplaying out the sane reaction (either get good at that dangerous job or get away from it).

Would you run into a burning building that contained no one you knew if you were not a trained firefighter? I'd hope the answer is no because whatever your intentions you're just having to make the pros go save more people.

QuoteWell not all PCs need to be good at their job plenty of folks in real like just muddle through I have met a fair few pretty crap police officers and a lot of very dense soldiers
Again fiction is full of characters who are where they are by luck and circumstance.

As for the building thing. No idea its never happened but I have certainly got into a lot of fights I could have avoided by not worrying what happens to that guy and just calling the police.

QuoteWell then I guess they have fun dying.

on an infinite timeline everybody dies.....
Maybe its just about the journey?

QuotePole dancing is pretty dumb. I think just the fact I call it pole dancing makes that clear. That said, a Rogue that roleplays playing reckless will soon roleplay being a corpse. And a mimic... assuming you don't make the knowledge check yeah, it will surprise you. Once. Then you'll start checking objects to see if they're actually alive before they grab you and start eating your face.

The whole pole dancing thing is the emergent gameplay of realizing that traps in older editions will wreck your shit and thieves are useless at dealing with them. It only becomes metagaming when you have new adventurers doing it without someone telling them.

I thimk the 'pole dancing' thing just emerges because people ask what would I do if I were in this situation. It's not about traps its about the most effective and efficient way to 'win' and in that sense I think it's very similar to optimisation.  You say ... If I were a Druid what woudl be the most optimal choices I could take within this rule system to maximise my efficiency and survivability. They say ... if I were an adventurer what would be the optimal choices I could take with in this game world to maximise my efficiency and survivability.

QuoteNope, still haven't explained it. I'm looking for a Type I is this, a Type II is this, a Type III is this... or you can show me where someone else explained this.

Okay ...
maybe tomorrow the wife wants to go to bed.

QuoteAn adventurer that can't adventure is pretty damn silly. So is the arrow demon, but we're talking about a game in which low level play consists of more rainbow effects being thrown about than a My Little Pony episode. Why? Because Color Spray and Glitterdust are the most effective tactics at that level. If you're an adventurer, if you're going down into holes to kill things and deprive them of their possessions, you've long since abandoned silly concepts like "pride". Ability, however remains practical.

See I don't agree that all D&D characters need to be professional adventurers. Certainly wider than D&D that is not the case.
A farmer forced to adventure is a pretty solid trope, as is the oafish noble, the clumsy wizard, the priest who has lost their faith etc etc ... now maybe if they reach 10th level they are a little more proficient but its not a straight line.

So an actual character of mine Seargent Crow
i) rolled weak stats 1 15 and the rest in the average category... I never discard a set of numbers by the way or play a suicide even if the character is reckless they don't realise they are reckless.
ii) 1-3rd level part of a miliraty based game but it was kind of semi play where the DM took each PC through 1-3 in an abstract way still rolls and a few insicents combats and what not but abstracted to major events
ii) started play wasn;t very good. the wizard in the party had no offensive spells the rouge was a coward who hid. We had one mysterious tough PC.
iii) rose to 7th level prior to death.

We never fudge a roll or pull back on tactics and there is a certain degree of player v DM. Crow fought a lot of stuff never shirked bbut his tactics were sound, drawn from his myrmidon kit and the player, he got lucky a lot due to luck and he picked his fights.
By the time he got to 7th level he was tough but I refused to 'optimise' and take magic etc that woudl have made him tougher because the kit he woudl have had to replace was part of his character by that point.
When he died i was pissed off of course but not in a the DM chaeated me way, i was happy with all of that but in a design sense because I felt that the game was too reliant on magical kit to keep up.
From a Roleplay and game experience perspective it was great and I would do it again and not change anything.

Quote from: jibbajibba;589297i) Player adventuring skill
ii) Player system knowledge
iii) Player desire to roleplay and make desicsions from a character perspective

You are mostly ii the OSR guys are mostly i I am mostly iii.

I am mostly i followed by iii -- ii doesn't really even enter into most of the games I play or run because players don't really need any system knowledge to play well in these games -- they can just say what they character is doing in the setting (without needed to know or use any gamespeak) and the GM will tell them what, if anything, they need to roll or do. I realize that WOTC D&D, especially 3.x, highly rewards "rules/system mastery" -- but since I have little interest in requiring players to buy (let alone master) a lot of rules, I don't want to reward rules/system mastery nearly that much and so seldom play WOTC editions of D&D. I'm also not a competitive gamer, at least not in RPGs, as I think the most fun (for me) comes from cooperative play in RPGs.

I realize that for the styles of play that folks like MGuy and Mr. GC seem to like, 3.x is pretty broken. However, I could care less as I play very little 3.x as I do not like it -- the only version of D&D I like less than 3.x is 4e. And when I do play in a 3.x game, I play with people who play it just like it was 1e or 2e so 95% of the major problems that folks like MGuy and Mr GC have with 3.x simply never come up in our play or have been prevented by some relatively simple house rules. 3.x doesn't break any worse than any other RPG in the non-competitive and somewhat casual style of play we use.

Quote from: Sommerjon;589267No.  I'm not beholden to the skill modifier.
  I make fervent use of backgrounds.  You make a character in my game that is, say, a Rogue who lived his whole life in Bigcityville and jibbajibba makes a Ranger who spent his whole life in the wilds, when you both roll(the same number) for a spot check (in the wilds), jibbajibba's Ranger will see far more than your Rogue will, the same if the place was switched.
The modifier doesn't tell all.

...


I would say it's more about your peeing in their wheaties.  

I'd consider this peeing in your player's wheaties.  A rogue that lives his whole life in the city but trains to be aware of his surroundings and a Ranger who spent his whole life in the wilds and trains to be aware of his surroundings might be equally likely to notice something - like someone hiding in ambush.  

Now things like the presence or absence of an animal that you'd expect to find (like birds) might not be represented by a Perception type check - it might be Knowledge [nature] or Survival.  

But assuming that you're saying 'this situation calls for this type of roll', then I absolutely think you should treat the players equally.  If it's DC 15 for one, it should be DC 15 for the other.  And if the Ranger misses the check and the Rogue makes it - that's story worthy.  You can explain why the Ranger was focused on something else...  Etc.  

If that's really the way you play, I'd have no interest in ever sitting in on your game (goes nicely with the fact that you have no interest in having me).  But I think that type of arbitrariness is the absolute worst quality that a DM can exhibit.  Since you'd expect that they'd have an interest in making the game fair and apply the rules consistently, that kind of failure is unacceptable to me as a player.  

That's exactly the type of playstyle that people have referred to as 'sucking the DMs cock'.  If the DM likes you, you're more likely to get a 'favorable consideration' for your 'background'.  

Sucking the DMs cock (or even having that as a viable strategy to increase your odds of success) is a type of game that bothers me.

You should talk to Ron Edwards et al.

They share your views.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;589347I'd consider this peeing in your player's wheaties.  A rogue that lives his whole life in the city but trains to be aware of his surroundings and a Ranger who spent his whole life in the wilds and trains to be aware of his surroundings might be equally likely to notice something - like someone hiding in ambush.

Except, of course, that it does not work that way in real life. Such skills generally do not work nearly as well in environments the person is not as familiar with. So, like Sommerjon, in my games, if you are an urban character with little or no experience in the wilderness some of your skills aren't going to be as effective in the wilderness as those of an identical character who has spent most of his life in the wilderness. Setting "realism" trumps the RAW every time in my games.

QuoteIf that's really the way you play, I'd have no interest in ever sitting in on your game (goes nicely with the fact that you have no interest in having me).  But I think that type of arbitrariness is the absolute worst quality that a DM can exhibit.  Since you'd expect that they'd have an interest in making the game fair and apply the rules consistently, that kind of failure is unacceptable to me as a player.

I would not ask you to play in my games as your desired style of play is much different from the style of play my players and I most enjoy. I would also decline to play in your games for that reason, neither of us would really enjoy playing in the other's campaign due to other major differences in desired style of play.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;589347That's exactly the type of playstyle that people have referred to as 'sucking the DMs cock'.  If the DM likes you, you're more likely to get a 'favorable consideration' for your 'background'.  

Sucking the DMs cock (or even having that as a viable strategy to increase your odds of success) is a type of game that bothers me.

having played in games like this, I can say it has nothing to do with whether the GM likes you or sucking up to the GM. A bad Gm might play favorites that way, but a good GM measures these things according to things like the setting and other expectations shared by the group. It isn't so much about ignoring the rules as not being constrained by them when setting and in campaign events demand it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;589347I'd consider this peeing in your player's wheaties.  A rogue that lives his whole life in the city but trains to be aware of his surroundings and a Ranger who spent his whole life in the wilds and trains to be aware of his surroundings might be equally likely to notice something - like someone hiding in ambush.  

Because setting up an ambush in the city is exactly the same as setting up an ambush in the woods.  In other words: no, that is a ridiculous claim to make.  They are two wildly different scenarios.

QuoteIf that's really the way you play, I'd have no interest in ever sitting in on your game (goes nicely with the fact that you have no interest in having me).  But I think that type of arbitrariness is the absolute worst quality that a DM can exhibit.  Since you'd expect that they'd have an interest in making the game fair and apply the rules consistently, that kind of failure is unacceptable to me as a player.  

You would expect that.  Not everyone does, and those people have fun also.  Falling back on the rules as ultimate arbiter is one style of play, but not universally desirable or axiomatically the best.

QuoteThat's exactly the type of playstyle that people have referred to as 'sucking the DMs cock'.  If the DM likes you, you're more likely to get a 'favorable consideration' for your 'background'.

More like 'games where I can't use the rules to browbeat a win out of the GM'.  So, it's magical tea party with numbers.  But it's certainly not 'objective' or 'more rigorous', the GM pity is just hidden better.

QuoteSucking the DMs cock (or even having that as a viable strategy to increase your odds of success) is a type of game that bothers me.

See above.  That is exactly the kind of game you play now.  You just do it with numbers instead of words.  Maxing out all your combat skills is absolutely no different than maxing out your social skills.  In both cases, the GM is going to present you with challenges commensurate with those scores.  Because it is just as trivial for the GM to say 'no' to all your haggling or clever tricks as it is to throw out a monster with 500d10 hit dice, 250AC and immune to all spells and psionics.

What Frank and his group scramble around to avoid admitting is that it's all magical tea party.  Some people have absolutely terrible social/verbal skills in real life, so they hate interacting with the GM.  Some people have abysmal math skills, so they avoid combat.  In the end, however, every single table is only as good as the GM lets them be.  You just don't want to verbally engage in 'sucking the DMs cock', you want to do it with the numbers on your character sheet instead.  But make no mistake, you are currying favour with your GM using your character sheet and a dazzling combination of spells/feats/skills;  exactly the same as the person that makes the extensive background.

Yeah, the funniest thing about the MTP crowd is they prefer a game that supposedly relies only on their skill with the game mechanics.  Of course that edition also has schedules for how much magic they should get, what monsters they can or cannot encounter, and how many encounters per day.  They don't want to man up and play where a party TPK is a real possibility, they don't want to beg the GM to take it easy on them (which is something old school players don't actually do, but I guess these jokers have to, either way, they sure love talking about sucking guys cocks, don't they?  Kind of weird.), so they play a game where the rules say he has to take it easy on them.  

Quote from: deadDMwalking;589347If that's really the way you play, I'd have no interest in ever sitting in on your game (goes nicely with the fact that you have no interest in having me).  But I think that type of arbitrariness is the absolute worst quality that a DM can exhibit.  Since you'd expect that they'd have an interest in making the game fair and apply the rules consistently, that kind of failure is unacceptable to me as a player.

Yet you are fine with the type of arbitrariness that is 'player mastery of mechanics'?  

Quote from: deadDMwalking;589347That's exactly the type of playstyle that people have referred to as 'sucking the DMs cock'.  If the DM likes you, you're more likely to get a 'favorable consideration' for your 'background'.  

Sucking the DMs cock (or even having that as a viable strategy to increase your odds of success) is a type of game that bothers me.

I fail to see how a DM who likes to add some realism to the game forces players to blow me.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589315A Spellcraft check of 15 + spell level identifies spells. So if you are level 3, and you have an Int of at least 14 you are automatically aware of every 2nd level spell out there of every class. This includes both "Invisibility" and "See Invisibility". You are explicitly aware of both of these things.

This is why I tossed Spellcraft out of 3e

Quote from: Sommerjon;589267It appears to me you have made certain skills more of an emphasis than others.  If I were to play in any game you ran, no matter the motif,  I would have to make sure certain select skills (that you have made artificially important) would be taken.  Those skills (based upon how type III D&D is designed) means class is restricted.

"I" don't need to do anything to "make" a skill have more emphasis nor do I need to do anything "artificial" to promote one skill over another. I am unsure if you did this on purpose but... you seem to have missed what I was saying somehow. Instead of repeating it I'm going to engage you by asking you questions. Hopefully as you think of answers to them you will trip over some answers. Ok here we go.

Which is more likely to be used in most DnD games? Craft: Woven Basket or Perception? Feel free to create as many parameters for various styles of DnD play so that none of the examples you come up mentally are created in a vacuum. When I ask this question to myself it is obvious that Perception comes up the most. In my mindscape perception has a lot more applicable situations than Craft: Woven Basket. If you can think of scenarios where the opposite is true then I am all ears.

QuoteNo.  I'm not beholden to the skill modifier.
  I make fervent use of backgrounds.  You make a character in my game that is, say, a Rogue who lived his whole life in Bigcityville and jibbajibba makes a Ranger who spent his whole life in the wilds, when you both roll(the same number) for a spot check (in the wilds), jibbajibba's Ranger will see far more than your Rogue will, the same if the place was switched.
The modifier doesn't tell all.

So are you saying that my skill check and jibba's skill check (without being beholden to modifiers) somehow arbitrarily achieve different results? How do you explain that to players while keeping yourself unbound by skill modifiers? Do you explain to players that you will arbitrarily (with no warning or explanation) allow people with certain backgrounds to have unseen and unknown modifiers that you are not beholden to to randomly adjust their results based on whether or not you "feel" it is appropriate?

QuoteI would say it's more about your peeing in their wheaties.  Too many here have no problem talking out both sides of their mouths when it suits their need to be confrontational.

And from my point of view you have made part of the game a vacuum.  You let certain skills have greater emphasis over others.
If you could really see where others talk about engaging the setting instead of engaging the rules.  Sometimes rules suck when it comes to RPGs.

What part of the game do you think is made in a vacuum? Is it truly hard to posit that players are more likely to use skills that apply to more situations more often than skills that only apply to a much more narrow set of circumstances? What exactly is it that you have found that I haven't understood about your argument thus far? Are you sure I haven't already addressed what you think I haven't understood in a previous post?

QuoteI would hazard an opinion that perception has become a crutch for players/DM to fall back upon when they don't want to interact with the setting.  Sorta like a group in my parts who just kill everything first then question the corpses.  They get around having to use Sense Motive and Diplomacy for the most part.  It's also like the 10' pole thing that drives me batshit crazy.  The whole idea of carrying a 10' pole around(do they not realize how bulky a 10' pole is?)

How is "perception" a crutch that prevents interaction with the setting? Do you not think that the things you write down on your character sheet are things your character (and by that extension you) actually use to interact with the setting? How is Perception a crutch yet Diplomacy/Sense Motive are not?

QuoteLets look at a couple you posted.
Diplomacy: High number trumps everything,  look up there at your 'justifications' for the dwarf/elf scenario
Sense Motive: Never encountered the race/creature...doesn't matter I gots a high mod, setting not engaged
Bluff: Never encountered the race/creature...doesn't matter I gots a high mod, setting not engaged
Perception: Never seen a red bellied slipper-slapper before but I can spot them all day long cuz I gots a high mod....
Survival:  I grew up in desertville, we teleported to snowville, no worries folks I gots a high mod....

This I can't address with questions so I'll break this one down into pieces:

Diplomacy - First off, I don't like how Diplomacy currently works so with that out the way. With that some people are just Charismatic enough to fit in anywhere. Perhaps in talking to so many people (in the adventures that got your stat mod so high) you've picked up a thing or two about dwarves (especially since one is in your party). If you don't like that then you should house rule "familiarity" modifiers into the game.

Sense Motive - No reason you can't use your intuition to know bullshit when you hear it. Since people are culturally connected enough to know each other's languages there really isn't a reason you can't pick up on certain tones, logic strings, wordage, that hint you off to a lie or two.

Bluff - Same thing as sense motive except in reverse. You know how to at least make yourself convincing when you say something or you know how to word shit right. There's no reason you need to particularly know about dwarves to know how to tell a lie. You're not the same race as them so all you have to do is appear to look like your race telling the truth.

In all these situations you also have a dwarf (apparently) in your party so I don't know how you couldn't get some experience in dealing with dwarves from having the dwarf (that you mentioned in the post leading up to this one) in the party.

Perception - When I was a kid I didn't know the name or what a lot of stuff was. That never prevented me from seeing it.I think you wanted to say that not seeing an SS before should stop me from identifying it and that is reasonable and not in any way covered by the rules.

Survival - It gets really fucking cold in the desert so you'd at least have some experience protecting yourself from the cold. Also, perhaps, you have heard of colder climes in your adventures that you went on to get that high survival mod and perhaps know a thing or two about how to adapt (especially if you're at the level where you're teleporting willy nilly with your buds).

These are all just off the top of my head. Given more context (instead of the vacuum here) I probably could delve deeper into the whys and hows but I think you get my drift.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589351having played in games like this, I can say it has nothing to do with whether the GM likes you or sucking up to the GM. A bad Gm might play favorites that way, but a good GM measures these things according to things like the setting and other expectations shared by the group. It isn't so much about ignoring the rules as not being constrained by them when setting and in campaign events demand it.

As I said before "if" you are going to change the rules it should be done BEFORE the game begins and you should let all your players know that the rules have changed. To not do so and then expect them to read your mind or make in character decisions based on what you may or may not think is appropriate is being a bad GM. If you want your players to truly engage in the setting then they should know how the world's physics work or at least have some idea if they don't know how things should work then they know less then their characters do and that breaks any immersion you could hope to have as you have to zoom out and explain shit to the players that they should already know. If you have to keep telling them "no you get a +4 situation mod all of a sudden because I think your farming background should count here" or "you get a -4 to attack because you've never killed a man(you got the farmhand background) before and are hesitant to do so" that kills the mood. That's shit a player should know going into the game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;589363Yeah, the funniest thing about the MTP crowd is they prefer a game that supposedly relies only on their skill with the game mechanics.  Of course that edition also has schedules for how much magic they should get, what monsters they can or cannot encounter, and how many encounters per day.  They don't want to man up and play where a party TPK is a real possibility, they don't want to beg the GM to take it easy on them (which is something old school players don't actually do, but I guess these jokers have to, either way, they sure love talking about sucking guys cocks, don't they?  Kind of weird.), so they play a game where the rules say he has to take it easy on them.  

You say that in a thread where half the posts are telling you to your face that the GM is expecting players to conform to their way of thinking in order to "play smart and live"? You have GOT to be being dishonest with yourself if you believe that to be an accurate breakdown about what's going on here.

Quote from: Sommerjon;589381Yet you are fine with the type of arbitrariness that is 'player mastery of mechanics'?

How is knowing the rules of the game and abiding by them for profit arbitrary?

QuoteI fail to see how a DM who likes to add some realism to the game forces players to blow me.

Because what is realistic to one person is not realistic to another. Since we are all playing an imaginary game that is purposefully not realistic you have to rely on the rules to determine what does/doesn't happen in the game. If the GM then overrides the rules to adjust the setting to his/her imagined reality you are then forced to understand the way the GM is thinking in order to succeed.

Quote from: Sommerjon;589382This is why I tossed Spellcraft out of 3e

Because you hate the idea that people who study (and have ways of reading, seeing, understanding) magic might be able to tell what magic is being used right in front of their face?

Quote from: MGuy;589386How is knowing the rules of the game and abiding by them for profit arbitrary?

Because your making the rules paramount.
Not everyone wants to spend the amount of time it takes to master all of the little nuances that come with type III D&D?
Because not everyone has to have every possible benefit they can choke out of a system?

Quote from: MGuy;589386Because what is realistic to one person is not realistic to another. Since we are all playing an imaginary game that is purposefully not realistic you have to rely on the rules to determine what does/doesn't happen in the game. If the GM then overrides the rules to adjust the setting to his/her imagined reality you are then forced to understand the way the GM is thinking in order to succeed.

And type III D&D rules are flawed.
Easy point to make set DCs in a system with stacking modifiers?  Really what were they thinking.

And Yes I'll take my experiences of reality over most others.  I understand the fundamental differences of 'spotting' in an urban vs natural enviroment.  They do not equate.  You have to have experience in both to have the same chances.  What you look for in either setting is different for either setting.  Not having these differences is a system issue that I am more than happy to correct.

Quote from: MGuy;589386Because you hate the idea that people who study (and have ways of reading, seeing, understanding) magic might be able to tell what magic is being used right in front of their face?

No study only goes so far.  A first level character with a lucky die roll can identify a ninth level spell,  a spell he most likely has never seen cast, but because the way the skill works knows all about it.  Or how do you differentiate between spells that have similar effects on something after the fact?

Quote from: MGuy;589386You say that in a thread where half the posts are telling you to your face that the GM is expecting players to conform to their way of thinking in order to "play smart and live"? You have GOT to be being dishonest with yourself if you believe that to be an accurate breakdown about what's going on here.

Didn't like that? If you want to actually have a serious conversation, try not to start out by misrepresenting what the other side actually is trying to tell you.

Yes, AD&D is deadly. Yes, despite playing like a genius, you may actually get hit for enough HPs to drop you.  However, does that mean tactics don't matter?  Of course not.  Tactics matter.  Forget the old "sack of flour and a 10' pole" Indiana Jones crap, simple things make a huge difference, like fighters in front, like humans with spears fighting behind dwarves, like thieves and rangers scouting ahead, like a hundred different things players all over the world did every weekend since before you were born.  Not because they keyed in to the GM's way of thinking, but because things work that way in our world, so it makes sense it works in others.

Stop parroting talking points like "game the GM or game the system" and think.  "Rulings not Rules" doesn't mean in my campaign water flows uphill and light doesn't cast shadows and you have to come to terms with my ridiculous set of house rules in order to function.  Yeah, there's the terms Dungeon Master and Game Master, there's also the term referee in the original books because that's what the DM was.  Yeah some referee's sucked, I'd like to find the guy that DM'd Ron Edwards and punch him in the sack for all the grief his bullshit games caused us.

You don't want a living breathing world where if you travel the mountains you might run into a giant, dragon or the Tarrasque.  You want an arena where you can tactically play the encounter.  You want a tactical roleplaying boardgame, and you have one.  Good for you.  Stop trying to pretend that's what anyone else wants or that your choice is somehow better.  And for the love of god, stop pretending that a DM in chains to the 3.5 CR system, encounter system, and treasure system is running any less of a "Magical Tea Party".

Quote from: MGuy;589386As I said before "if" you are going to change the rules it should be done BEFORE the game begins and you should let all your players know that the rules have changed. To not do so and then expect them to read your mind or make in character decisions based on what you may or may not think is appropriate is being a bad GM. If you want your players to truly engage in the setting then they should know how the world's physics work or at least have some idea if they don't know how things should work then they know less then their characters do and that breaks any immersion you could hope to have as you have to zoom out and explain shit to the players that they should already know. If you have to keep telling them "no you get a +4 situation mod all of a sudden because I think your farming background should count here" or "you get a -4 to attack because you've never killed a man(you got the farmhand background) before and are hesitant to do so" that kills the mood. That's shit a player should know going into the game.

Hey McGuy. Like I said, of this is your preference, there is nothing wrong with it. But what I am talking about is whether a group acceptsthe mechanics a the sole determination of "setting physics" or whether the group expects the GM to adjuicate mechanics so their results comform better to his and their understanding of the setting physics. Personally i don't like the GM changing stuff "just because" but if there is a good reason to ignore RAW because it produces better supports hissense of the setting, i have no problem with it. I suppose if you are relying soley on mechanicsto inform your sense of setting physics, this could be jarring, but if you rely on setting, game events and common sense to determine "setting physics" it isn't much of a problem. Rules are good. I like GMs to be somewhat consistent in their application but rigid adherence to RAW, in my opinion, can actually break immersion if rules occassionally make you scratch your head (even f they work great 95% of the time).

Again, this is preference. If you want the rules to be followed to the letter, that isn't wrong. But neither are more relaxed approaches.