Quote from: TonyLBWell ... what if we were talking about which player goes first?  How would you say that people resolve that question?

Seems to me they roll for initiative, but maybe I'm missing the distinction you're making.

I'm making a distinction between the players themselves and the player characters who are being played by the players. The PCs are the pieces the characters move in the game. While the players roll for initiative, they are rolling to determine which PC goes first - not which player.

Lets say a player has two or more player characters in game. The initiative roll would be done by the player, but a roll would be made for each individual PC. The PCs would not all have the same identical initiative.

Quote from: jeff37923I think we may be talking past each other. To use a law analogy, I'm looking at the GM as the judge while the game system is the laws (rules) that the Judge must interpret in implementation. To use the language as a tool analogy, the GM is the one facilitating communication between the game environment with the players and their characters while the game system is providing the common language to do so.

Which means, to my way of thinking, that the GM is the arbitrator, not the rules. I think i posted somewhere else that no game system survives contact with a gaming group. The game acting as arbitrator is fine when there is no conflict about what a certain rule or situation throws up; just look up the rule and hey presto! But where an area doesn't fit the group's preference or there is one of those many times when there is no rule or advice to cover what is being done at the gaming table, then the GM becomes the arbitrator between what the players want to do and the existing rules from the rule system. I don't think you can ever say that it's 100% one thing or the other or if you do, i'd think you're fibbing.

Arbitration:
The process by which the parties to a dispute submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person or group appointed by mutual consent or statutory provision.

Quote from: One Horse TownWhich means, to my way of thinking, that the GM is the arbitrator, not the rules. I think i posted somewhere else that no game system survives contact with a gaming group. The game acting as arbitrator is fine when there is no conflict about what a certain rule or situation throws up; just look up the rule and hey presto! But where an area doesn't fit the group's preference or there is one of those many times when there is no rule or advice to cover what is being done at the gaming table, then the GM becomes the arbitrator between what the players want to do and the existing rules from the rule system. I don't think you can ever say that it's 100% one thing or the other or if you do, i'd think you're fibbing.

Arbitration:
The process by which the parties to a dispute submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person or group appointed by mutual consent or statutory provision.

So you get what my meaning is, good. And I acknowledge your opinion that no game system survives contact with a gaming group.

Now, when the GM must make a judgement on a situation not covered by the rules does the GM not have the game system to use a reference guideline to make the judgement? I'm still processing all this, but I wonder if the mark of a good GM may be the ability to make arbitrary decisions on game play not defined by the game system (in the rules) - but still in the spirit of the game system so that the decision doesn't seem nonsensical in the context of the game system.

Obviously, I'm going to need more beer for this.

Quote from: jeff37923Now, when the GM must make a judgement on a situation not covered by the rules does the GM not have the game system to use a reference guideline to make the judgement?

Absolutely. He also has his and his game groups' preferences and experience to draw upon. He marries up what is required with what guidelines he has to work with (the system).

Quote...but still in the spirit of the game system so that the decision doesn't seem nonsensical in the context of the game system.

Change that to the "spirit of his gaming groups' likes and dislikes using the rules as a tool to facilitate that" and i would agree. The only spirit around my table is my groups, not the systems. Tone is another matter though...

Quote from: One Horse TownChange that to the "spirit of his gaming groups' likes and dislikes using the rules as a tool to facilitate that" and i would agree. The only spirit around my table is my groups, not the systems. Tone is another matter though...

I wonder if the mark of a good GM may be the ability to make arbitrary decisions on game play not defined by the game system (in the rules) - but still in the tone of the game system so that the decision doesn't seem nonsensical in the context of the game system.


Better?

Quote from: flyingmiceRolling dice is a rather coarse and clumsy thing compared to actual human interaction, so why replace human interaction with dice when it's not necessary? The players can deal. The Player Characters can't.

If two players can just interact and decide things which are issues between players, why not the issues between characters? Careful, that way madness lies. Before you know it, you're putting on a leotard and doing improv drama.*

Initiative rolls are about which character goes first, and at the same time also about which player goes first. You do not usually find that the player whose character lost initiative goes first - unless the winning character lets them go first, sacrificing their initiative.

Fact is, players can't always sort their shit out. I don't think this is a new problem, if Gygax was writing about it in 1978.

Actually, mentioning AD&D1e makes me remember that its modern parody (or postmodern LARP) version, Hackmaster - they've got rules for resolving disputes between the participants. Among other things, there's a HM Smackdown Table. If you diss the GM, then they roll on that, and maybe a demon appears to eat you, or a trap opens under your feet, or you lose a random bit of your loot, or... And when players diss each-other, they lose Honor if they don't respond, and... well, there's all sorts of stuff there, but I forget the details. Point is, it's got rules for disputes between the participants, not just their characters.

* Thanks to Screenmonkey for the joke, though he was referring to diceless games.

I've got to borrow Hackmaster and look at it, just for that.