Quote from: David R;301020But trust and how the GM relates to the perception of her/his players (when it comes to fiat) is something done over time. It a series of decisions and discussions...So, just because you think the GM is wrong in your bear situation, doesn't mean you will think he/she wrong when it comes to something else.

You're right, factually speaking, he or she wouldn't necessarily make another bad call. Perceptually - and I think realistically - he or she would. In fact, the bears' speed call was just one of several my GM made during the course of just that game.

Seanchai

Quote from: Haffrung;301096Only once, really. Unless you feel you need to play in a bunch of different groups, or play more often than your GM wants to.

Or the group disbands, you move, your work hours change, you get married, have a child, start taking classes, or one of a hundred reasons why you might need to find a new group.

Quote from: Haffrung;301096Of course, you could take up the responsibility of GMing yourself.

I've GMed 95% of the time I've played since 1983, thanks.

Quote from: Haffrung;301096But if this is really so - if lots of players really can't find someone competent and trustworthy to GM their games - then the roleplaying game hobby is pretty much on its deathbed.

Look at the evolution of games. Even with new, indie rules light systems, the GM fiat is balanced against pro-player mechanics.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;301284Look at the evolution of games. Even with new, indie rules light systems, the GM fiat is balanced against pro-player mechanics.

Seanchai

Or a very old game like Marvel Super Heroes in which the GM has to make a lot of rulings becasue of the fast and loose mechanics but the players have Karma which empowers them and balances things nicely.

Quote from: Seanchai;301284OLook at the evolution of games. Even with new, indie rules light systems, the GM fiat is balanced against pro-player mechanics.

But this gets right back to the issue we were talking about upthread, does it not? "Pro-player" just means that, now, not only the GM but also your fellow players have to be competent at making "good rulings".

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;301466But this gets right back to the issue we were talking about upthread, does it not? "Pro-player" just means that, now, not only the GM but also your fellow players have to be competent at making "good rulings".

Yep. My group is quick to smack down a new player who is argumentative and selfish. Shut up - the DM is god, they tell him. Not because they're beaten down or submissive, but because I'm a good DM who runs a good game.

One asshat player can ruin a game just as surely as an asshat DM.

Quote from: Haffrung;301516One asshat player can ruin a game just as surely as an asshat DM.

Indeed, quoted for truth.

Quote from: Haffrung;301516Yep. My group is quick to smack down a new player who is argumentative and selfish. Shut up - the DM is god, they tell him. Not because they're beaten down or submissive, but because I'm a good DM who runs a good game.

One asshat player can ruin a game just as surely as an asshat DM.

That is very true

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;301466But this gets right back to the issue we were talking about upthread, does it not? "Pro-player" just means that, now, not only the GM but also your fellow players have to be competent at making "good rulings".

But they're not rulings in the same sense as the GM's. A player using such mechanics may be able to the reality the game, but a) those changes are likely to be short term, b) they're covered by mechanics, and c) they don't change the actual mechanics of the game.

Absolutely, bad players can wreck the game. But even with pro-player mechanics, the scope player-wrought changes and "rulings" is very different.

Seanchai

We've drifted pretty far into hypothetical territory, but logically, if "pro-player" mechanics give players the ability to overrule bad GM calls, then they also give bad players the ability to inject their own bad calls.

Unless we're back to seeing "GM fiat" as "GM prerogative to ignore the rules"--but then no amount of "pro-player" rules say will help with that.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;301770We've drifted pretty far into hypothetical territory, but logically, if "pro-player" mechanics give players the ability to overrule bad GM calls, then they also give bad players the ability to inject their own bad calls.

Unless we're back to seeing "GM fiat" as "GM prerogative to ignore the rules"--but then no amount of "pro-player" rules say will help with that.

And here, in a nutshell is the problem with just about every Forge game ever made.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;301770We've drifted pretty far into hypothetical territory, but logically, if "pro-player" mechanics give players the ability to overrule bad GM calls, then they also give bad players the ability to inject their own bad calls.

Unless we're back to seeing "GM fiat" as "GM prerogative to ignore the rules"--but then no amount of "pro-player" rules say will help with that.

This makes me want to go back to when my friends and I were playing the old Mutant Chronicles boardgame a lot.  No screens, no fate, no fiat.  Just ruthless brutality and a come what may attitude.

Never played that one. Boardgames have it up on RPGs in that way, though. Well, mostly--a lot of multiplayer boardgames have the kingmaker problem.

One thing about "pro-player" mechanics, if they're powerful enough to let players make a few bad calls, they can probably at least prevent the game from being dominated by a single preconceived dramatic structure. The whole thing might not make much sense if there's a doofus or two among the players, but at least the GM can't plot it out in advance.

I prefer a good GM. However, given a choice between (a) playing through a preset scenario where the PCs' actions are basically irrelevant, and (b) playing a game where bears are slow, NPC motivations are nonsensical, and any old plan will do if you've got the "plot points" to spend--but at least something surprising can happen--I'll take (b).

Ironically, I've never actually seen that problem happen in Kingmaker (the old board game).

RPGPundit

True, and I hesitated to refer to it by that name, but that's what it's often called. Basically, someone's got a grudge or just wants the game to end, they can't win by themselves, so they throw it to someone else.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;301770We've drifted pretty far into hypothetical territory, but logically, if "pro-player" mechanics give players the ability to overrule bad GM calls, then they also give bad players the ability to inject their own bad calls.

Absolutely. But, again, they difference in scope and boundary.

Seanchai