Quote from: David R;292357I am the one however, who thinks that each group determines how they play their games, how much influence their GM has and the groups fidelity to the rules.

Regards,
David R

Bingo right there it is.  If anybody says any different than they are wrong.  I've had groups that I've had to rule with an iron fist and others that I let them do almost anything they want in.  It's all about the individual group.  No wanna be RPG messiah can say any different.

Quote from: jhkim;292368Also, I'd distinguish between the "player empowerment" of having a dependable rules system like Champions or D&D3, which is by now quite mainstream, with the "player empowerment" of story games that is still a niche within a niche.  There is some relation, but they are very distinct, I think.

I agree, because this is very similar to what I raised up-thread, though stated differently.

BTW, not sure exactly what Pundit's on about, and don't particularly care. The responses he's gotten, though, blur the distinction between gaming in a way that requires the GM to play by the rules when the rules apply, and gaming where rules qua rules rather universally constrain what the GM can do.

Pundit is right, though, that the latter is where we get "stakes setting" and "say yes or roll the dice", at least in their more extreme forms. Of course the extreme forms are either qualified in discussion and/or practice (sometimes to the point that they just amount to good traditional GMing practices), or they turn into social coercion by another name...or just fall flat as no real consensus develops, only polite acceptance of each other's lame "stakes".

There are at least three camps in this overall discussion, maybe four. One, not represented very strongly at this site, is the GM-as-auteur storyteller who (usually secretly) alters the rules on the fly, or subverts them in the interest of a particular plotline. Another is, basically, what I think Kyle advocates, where the GM basically overrules the rules in response to the mood at the table. Still another--which is where I'm happiest--is where the GM has clear authority over the game world, but generally tries to make the rules relevant wherever they apply. Finally there's the "stakes" and "say yes" approach, which as I've said tends toward the idea that the GM's authority has to be bound by rules at every juncture.

You can see the difference between these last two approaches if you look at Burning Wheel. Yes, the game has some "stakes setting" and "say yes", but there's nothing that limits the GM's ability to introduce opposition. If the GM wants to, he can have a hundred veteran ruffians around the next corner, and no general-purpose storygame mechanic is there to guarantee that a player can roll against a random skill to get out of the pickle.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;292375First up, I don't know why this is two threads. It seems like needless duplication, or forum fluffing for the appearance of more content.

This thread was meant to be the "history" thread, to trace where the concept came from. The other was to debate the virtues or faults of the concept itself. Naturally, there's ended up being quite a bit of overlap on account of both threads getting tons of post... which I think kind of defeats the accusation of "fluffing".

QuoteIn addition, player imagination and munchkinism both mean that the GM needs to make rulings. It was common in AD&D, for example, for the GM to be pushed by their players to make up rules for firearms and explosives.

Its sort of beside the point, but there WERE rules in the AD&D 1e DMG for firearms.

RPGPundit

Wow, it's Nature vs. Nurture all over again.

I'll only add that as a player, I can only affect the game by either playing to the rules, or playing to the GM's expectations. And 90% of the time I've found I had better luck doing the latter, but I really don't care which takes precedence. It's just easier to figure out where I stand with a set of rules than with a person.

Quote from: RPGPundit;292406This thread was meant to be the "history" thread, to trace where the concept came from.

And what have we learned in regards to the nefarious source of this dastardly movement?

Perhaps there's little history in this thread because this movement doesn't actually exist in the form you think it does?

Quote from: RandallS;292097Why would I want to list all that stuff?  If you walk in on something like that and ask what you see out of place, I'll tell you what is out of place drawing attention to the important stuff that you just said you were looking for. If you don't mention it, I will not point those items out to you. The only difference between your method and mine that I can see is the fact that you want both the statement and a die roll, where all I need is the statement.

Unlike the real world, the only source of information players have about the game world is through you, and if you don't give them enough information to form legitimate questions, then they aren't going to be able to ask them. It's very easy to limit and direct the kind of questions players will ask, even by accident, by the kind of details you choose to share in the initial description. I do this as a presenter, mentalist, and GM all the time.

Though there are certainly many others, this is THE main issue that drove the design of Project Acorn. Hell, (player) perception and (GM) presentation are MORE THAN HALF THE GAME! Yet they're typically addresses with a single skill and/or attribute.

This is a discussion for another time however.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;292219As usual this thread is confounding two issues that don't have to be linked. Let's see if anybody gets it.

1. Rules over GM vs the GM can ignore the rules.

2. Rules over GM vs wide latitude for GM discretion built into the rules.

3. Peanut butter and chocolate.

But they do taste great together.

On the other hand, this opens up all sorts of arguments over what the right way to eat a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup is.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;292618On the other hand, this opens up all sorts of arguments over what the right way to eat a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup is.

Everyone knows you start at the middle and work your way out. Duh.

Quote from: RPGPundit;292406Its sort of beside the point, but there WERE rules in the AD&D 1e DMG for firearms.

Best of all, there were rules for using Gamma World firearms.

I got your "wand of fireballs" right here, beyotch.