TheRPGSite

I'm pretty sure we've had this one before, but i've been reading a thread over at tbp and it really got me wondering why some folk have such a bee in their bonet over it.

If you don't trust your GM's decisions, get a better one or play with people you trust!

That does bring up one interesting observation, however. What if you hardly ever play with people you trust? What if you really only play regularly at gaming conventions? The question of fiat becomes a more touchy one then. To quote Mr.T, "I pity the fool who only plays at conventions," but maybe that explains why some folk really have a problem with it?

The obvious reductio ad absurdum is that if GM fiat is so great, why do we need rules systems at all?

No-one's pure judgments alone are entirely consistent, which is why we have rules, for some degree of consistency. Of course, reality is not consistent, but given that it's a roleplaying game, we want consistency - to have some idea of the odds of this or that.

In practice, every game session has a mixture of rules and rulings - GM fiat. What players are most often most comfortable with is when the rulings come from the principles of the rules, filling in holes, resolving contradictions, streamlining things for speed and convenience.

With this approach, the GM acts like a common law magistrate - applying a healthy dose of common sense and "what are we really aiming at here?" to the game.

However, just as some magistrates focus too much on the letter of the law and not enough on intent, and others are indifferent to the word of law, and treat the courtroom as their personal playpen, so too with GMs. If a GM hardly ever uses their fiat powers then players will be worried when they do; if a GM constantly ignores rules then players will be wary of their use of fiat power, since it's likely to be inconsistent.

So it's not really a matter of "not trusting" or the GM being an idiot or anything like that; just normal human nature is enough.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300444So it's not really a matter of "not trusting" or the GM being an idiot or anything like that; just normal human nature is enough.

I think it is.

Convention play aside, I think some gamers have had very bad experiences with GMs behaving like dicks. Add to them the crowd that believes that the GM is just another player (I think he/she is but has a different role from everyone else) and who are sceptical of the narrative control of the GM (or who prefer a more collaborative approach), and you got a whole lot of whining about GM fiat.

Regards,
David R

Now they own GM in Europe and 20% of Chysler you are going to see a lot more of Fiat mark my words

Quote from: jibbajibba;300449Now they own GM in Europe and 20% of Chysler you are going to see a lot more of Fiat mark my words

GET OUT OF MY HEAD, JIBBAJABBA! :O

-clash

Quote from: One Horse Town;300439If you don't trust your GM's decisions, get a better one or play with people you trust!

Seems obvious, doesn't it? Or take on the responsibility of GM yourself.

Quote from: One Horse Town;300439What if you hardly ever play with people you trust? What if you really only play regularly at gaming conventions? The question of fiat becomes a more touchy one then. To quote Mr.T, "I pity the fool who only plays at conventions," but maybe that explains why some folk really have a problem with it?

Indeed, I do pity people who play RPGs with folks they don't trust. I simply can't imagine why you would do that. Better to not play RPGs at all, in my books.

Quote from: Haffrung;300454Indeed, I do pity people who play RPGs with folks they don't trust. I simply can't imagine why you would do that. Better to not play RPGs at all, in my books.

Agreed. The only time I'll play with a bad GM is when the GM is a really good friend and just wants to run a game or two. Why? Because putting up with occasional BS to make a friend happy is just something you do. Other that that, I don't bother playing in a game ran by a bad GM. ("GM you can't trust" is a subset of "Bad GM").

Quote from: David R;300447I think it is.

Convention play aside, I think some gamers have had very bad experiences with GMs behaving like dicks. Add to them the crowd that believes that the GM is just another player (I think he/she is but has a different role from everyone else) and who are sceptical of the narrative control of the GM (or who prefer a more collaborative approach), and you got a whole lot of whining about GM fiat.

Regards,
David R

This. I agree with most of what Kyle was talking about but his conclusion. It totally is about trust between the participants at the game table, and their individual capacities to not be asses to each other.

Well, I understand how the resentment against GM fiat could have developed and evolved.  In my early days of 1e AD&D my DM was a module-only DM who never strayed outside of the grey text.  If it was beyond the scope of the module, then it didn't happen or exist.  This was a serious source of frustration for me as a player, and I could see how this frustration could balloon into this reactionary anti-GM Fiat movement.  Now, with that being said, my personal view coincides pretty much with the general consensus here.

Quote from: Drohem;300496If it was beyond the scope of the module, then it didn't happen or exist.  This was a serious source of frustration for me as a player, and I could see how this frustration could balloon into this reactionary anti-GM Fiat movement.  

I'm confused, shouldn't that kind of experience balloon into a pro-GM fiat movement.  Where players are in favor of the GM breaking out of the grey text box?

The original D&D rules were campaign notes.

"Here's a hit chart so I don't have to remember what I decided."

I thought that hit chart looked good so I used it.

D&D was a hit chart, a saving throw matrix, and some suggestions for monsters and treasure and shit.

The rules were for the referee to allow him or her to remember stuff, not to "battle for supremacy" with the players.  For the first three years, nobody but Gary and Dave even HAD rules to look at.

The expecation was that MOST would be "GM Fiat".  As in, "I want to leap off the balcony and grab the chandelier and swing over and kick the ogre in the head!"

There were no rules for this because we thought there couldn't be rules for everything.

We also thought the default of "When in doubt sling some dice and if the roll is even half decent let it happen" was obvious.

We also thought "All that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted" was obvious.

Know what?  We were wrong.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300444The obvious reductio ad absurdum is that if GM fiat is so great, why do we need rules systems at all?

Just once, I'd like to see someone actually address this...

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;300530Just once, I'd like to see someone actually address this...

KoOS

My answer is that if rules are convenient and may be helpful for all sorts of reasons, we don't actually "need" rules at all.

Quote from: Old Geezer;300527Know what?  We were wrong.

Wrong about what? Wrong in the way others would end up playing the game and their expectations, or something else?

Quote from: kryyst;300521I'm confused, shouldn't that kind of experience balloon into a pro-GM fiat movement.  Where players are in favor of the GM breaking out of the grey text box?

:o

Yes, you're right.  I had brain fart?  Yeah, I'm sticking with that one.

Quote from: One Horse Town;300439I'm pretty sure we've had this one before, but i've been reading a thread over at tbp and it really got me wondering why some folk have such a bee in their bonet over it.

Because most forum posters are not gamers.   They are ex-gamers who just re-tread (or in this case, re-thread) some ancient memory of a pimply 14 year old not giving them a Vorpal sword at 1st level.

I love conventions.  In 30 years and over 120 conventions with easily 700+ games, I have had a handful of bad GMs.   99% have been okay, good or great.   And when you ask most con-goers about places like RPG.net, they never heard of it.

Quote from: King of Old School;300530Just once, I'd like to see someone actually address this...

KoOS

I, as referee, want rules so I, as referee, don't have to remember shit that I think "works about right".

Like how hard it is to hit a guy in full plate armor, or stuff.

Like I said above, the "rules" were "campaign notes".

Quote from: Benoist;300535Wrong about what? Wrong in the way others would end up playing the game and their expectations, or something else?

We were wrong about the things we thought were obvious really being obvious to other people who weren't us.

Quote from: King of Old School;300530Just once, I'd like to see someone actually address this...

KoOS

Why don't you take a shot at it? :)

Quote from: Drohem;300496Well, I understand how the resentment against GM fiat could have developed and evolved.  In my early days of 1e AD&D my DM was a module-only DM who never strayed outside of the grey text.  If it was beyond the scope of the module, then it didn't happen or exist.  This was a serious source of frustration for me as a player, and I could see how this frustration could balloon into this reactionary anti-GM Fiat movement.  Now, with that being said, my personal view coincides pretty much with the general consensus here.

But surely, Drohem, that is an example of the problem with NOT using GM Fiat!
"The GM followed the Rules EXACTLY (just like Forgies want us to do) so clearly the problem is that he's gone mad with power and giving the GM authority sucks!"
That makes no sense.
Had that GM bothered to USE fiat, he could have shown things going on outside of the "grey text", and your game would have been better for it.

Yet instead of condemning him these people are condemning the idea of GM authority, and throwing their lot in with the "Grey Text Uber Alles" castrate-the-GM crowd? WTF?

RPGPundit

Well, I was thinking about the arbitrary nature of saying that actions can not be taken because that eventuality was not addressed, nor foreseen, by a published module.

However, it's clear that I failed my Communication skill check this morning. :o:)

Quote from: Drohem;300559Well, I was thinking about the arbitrary nature of saying that actions can not be taken because that eventuality was not addressed, nor foreseen, by a published module.

However, it's clear that I failed my Communication skill check this morning. :o:)

It's hard to talk with those big teeth, and harder to type with paws...

I give these excuses freely and without reservation of Intellectual Property. :D

-clash

Quote from: KenHR;300552Why don't you take a shot at it? :)

Why would I?  I'm not the one who thinks that, if you believe that games with rules should actually use those rules as a (har!) rule of thumb, you must think your GM is a complete rat bastard who should never be left alone with your children or your snacks.

KoOS

Quote from: Old Geezer;300549I, as referee, want rules so I, as referee, don't have to remember shit that I think "works about right".

Like how hard it is to hit a guy in full plate armor, or stuff.

Like I said above, the "rules" were "campaign notes".

What you're describing isn't a game, it's a beta test for a game.

KoOS

Quote from: Benoist;300534My answer is that if rules are convenient and may be helpful for all sorts of reasons, we don't actually "need" rules at all.

This doesn't quite parse in English.  Did you mean "while rules are convenient..."?

And my answer to that is if you don't need rules, you aren't playing a game.  You're indulging in some other hobby, the exact title of which I leave as an exercise for the reader.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;300567What you're describing isn't a game, it's a beta test for a game.

KoOS

So OD&D was a beta test for a game? Interesting opinion.

-clash

My group's general consensus is that as long as we're having fun, you can use GM fiat to your heart's content.  I usually remain behind the screen until the gloves come off.  As the plot focuses I fiat very little if at all.  Early on though it can help to get everyone on the same page without some game derailing roadblock.

Quote from: King of Old School;300569This doesn't quite parse in English.  Did you mean "while rules are convenient..."?

And my answer to that is if you don't need rules, you aren't playing a game.  You're indulging in some other hobby, the exact title of which I leave as an exercise for the reader.

KoOS

That would be roleplaying, what kids to with their action figures or adults do in the bedroom. :D

Roleplaying is natural, it's the game part that's difficult.

In other words I agree. Roleplaying without rules is not a game.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;300572That would be roleplaying, what kids to with their action figures or adults do in the bedroom. :D

Roleplaying is natural, it's the game part that's difficult.

-clash

That depends on the game.  Some games/groups take setting so seriously that intrigue and RP within the scope of the world actually becomes the challenge.  Those games aren't for me but many people seem to enjoy them.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;300573That depends on the game.  Some games/groups take setting so seriously that intrigue and RP within the scope of the world actually becomes the challenge.  Those games aren't for me but many people seem to enjoy them.

All games have rules. Sometimes the rules are unwritten and even denied, but they are there. Office Politics, for example, is a game.

-clash

Quote from: King of Old School;300567What you're describing isn't a game, it's a beta test for a game.

KoOS

I know TSR said many times they rushed D&D out the door in response to demand from gamers who wanted to try the rules.

And the principals in the original company were miniature wargamers, used to reading and interpreting miniatures rules at the time.  D&D's presentation in the original box really isn't that far removed from some of the miniatures rulesets available at the time.  Referee interpretation was a big part of how games were run.

Quote from: KenHR;300577I know TSR said many times they rushed D&D out the door in response to demand from gamers who wanted to try the rules.

And the principals in the original company were miniature wargamers, used to reading and interpreting miniatures rules at the time.  D&D's presentation in the original box really isn't that far removed from some of the miniatures rulesets available at the time.  Referee interpretation was a big part of how games were run.

If anyone should know, it's Old Geezer. :D

-clash

Quote from: King of Old School;300569This doesn't quite parse in English.  Did you mean "while rules are convenient..."?

And my answer to that is if you don't need rules, you aren't playing a game.  You're indulging in some other hobby, the exact title of which I leave as an exercise for the reader.

KoOS

Yes, I meant "while".

I guess I disagree about your assessment of what a game is and isn't, then. An activity that provides entertainment or amusement is what I would call "a game". Some games, particularly competitive ones, require rules, but not all games need rules to function. If you see an RPG as a cooperative activity, and not a competitive one, it doesn't actually require "rules" other than basic social ones (i.e. not being an ass to one another, for one).

Quote from: King of Old School;300567What [Old Geezer is] describing isn't a game, it's a beta test for a game.

KoOS

That actually made me laugh. :D

Quote from: flyingmice;300570So OD&D was a beta test for a game? Interesting opinion.

It's essentially a rewording of the ethos that appears to drive the whole retro-clone movement, as expressed on sites like Grognardia.  Of course, they'd take umbrage with my wording it thus, but there you have it.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;300585It's essentially a rewording of the ethos that appears to drive the whole retro-clone movement, as expressed on sites like Grognardia.  Of course, they'd take umbrage with my wording it thus, but there you have it.

KoOS

"What you're describing isn't a game, it's a beta test for a game." - This, here, is what you call the "ethos driving the whole retro-clone movement"? Excuse me but, could you actually spell out this ethos to me? I really don't see what you're trying to say.

Quote from: Benoist;300580I guess I disagree about your assessment of what a game is and isn't, then. An activity that provides entertainment or amusement is what I would call "a game".

That's an overly broad and all-encompassing definition IMO (by that standard, watching The Daily Show is "a game"), but it's a fair one.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;300585It's essentially a rewording of the ethos that appears to drive the whole retro-clone movement, as expressed on sites like Grognardia.  Of course, they'd take umbrage with my wording it thus, but there you have it.

KoOS

Ummm... This isn't a retro cloner explaining the retro clone ethos, it's a guy who was there with Mr. Gygax and Mr. Arneson telling us what actually happened.

-clash

Quote from: Benoist;300587"What you're describing isn't a game, it's a beta test for a game." - This, here, is what you call the "ethos driving the whole retro-clone movement"? Excuse me but, could you actually spell out this ethos to me? I really don't see what you're trying to say.

When people on Grognardia claim that one of the key elements of true "Old School" RPGs (like OD&D) is that they require the GM to "fill in the blanks" to be playable, that's a tacit admission that the games as published are incomplete beta versions.  I very much doubt they (or you) appreciate the characterization, but there you have it.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;300592When people on Grognardia claim that one of the key elements of true "Old School" RPGs (like OD&D) is that they require the GM to "fill in the blanks" to be playable, that's a tacit admission that the games as published are incomplete beta versions.  I very much doubt they (or you) appreciate the characterization, but there you have it.

KoOS

You actually do not understand said point of view, then.

The "game" here is what's actually happening around the table.
No rulebook, ever, constitutes "a game" on its own. It's just a tool helping you play a game with your friends. The GM and players are the ones who make the actual game happen, and OD&D more than any other game actually considers this simple fact a defining feature of RPGs.

Saying "OD&D requires the referee to fill in the blanks" is just saying "this is a game about a bunch of people around the table playing make-believe with the help of a bunch of dice and arbitrary rules put on paper. Don't forget you are the guys who make the game happen. Make judgment calls".

Quote from: King of Old School;300569And my answer to that is if you don't need rules, you aren't playing a game.  You're indulging in some other hobby, the exact title of which I leave as an exercise for the reader.

I'm going to poke my head into this thread to agree with you. Games have rules (or rather, at least one rule) by definition.

Quote from: King of Old School;300592When people on Grognardia claim that one of the key elements of true "Old School" RPGs (like OD&D) is that they require the GM to "fill in the blanks" to be playable, that's a tacit admission that the games as published are incomplete beta versions.  I very much doubt they (or you) appreciate the characterization, but there you have it.

KoOS

Grognardia isn't the voice of a generation, and certainly doesn't speak for me.  And by the way, it's just one guy.

D&D is perfectly playable by the book.  It might need interpretation here and there to clear up ambiguity, yes, but again, that was part of the gaming culture from which those rules arose.

RPGs are too open-ended to account for every eventuality.  Hell, minis games are too open-ended to account for every eventuality, thus the need for referees and the presentation of rules as guidelines for setting up your own games and campaigns.

You're viewing a completely different gaming culture through a modern lens.

Quote from: flyingmice;300590Ummm... This isn't a retro cloner explaining the retro clone ethos, it's a guy who was there with Mr. Gygax and Mr. Arneson telling us what actually happened.

Notwithstanding that I know exactly who Old Geezer is, I'm not sure I see how one conflicts with the other.  I'm pointing out that plenty of people who know and like OD&D would ascribe to it exactly the same traits I do, albeit in a more reverential way.

KoOS

You're too intense for my blood, man.... :)

Quote from: King of Old School;300567What you're describing isn't a game, it's a beta test for a game.

KoOS

To you.

Others may see things differently.

Like as in "a construction kit for a game".

Some people see a bunch of little strips of wood and say "it's not anything".

Others say "It's a coaling tower, or a depot, or a water tank".

Mileage, vary, yours, funny old world innit.

Quote from: Benoist;300593You actually do not understand said point of view, then.

No, I understand it just fine.  We just happen to disagree on what's being said.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;300592When people on Grognardia claim that one of the key elements of true "Old School" RPGs (like OD&D) is that they ALLOW the GM to "fill in the blanks" to be playable,

Fixed yer typo.

The game was "Build a world other people can explore".  The rules were there to help, and were of, by, and for the referee.

The fact you want to play a DIFFERENT game is irrelevant.

Quote from: King of Old School;300599No, I understand it just fine.  We just happen to disagree on what's being said.

KoOS

I think I'm right in our disagreement, hence: you actually do not understand.

Quote from: One Horse Town;300439I'm pretty sure we've had this one before, but i've been reading a thread over at tbp and it really got me wondering why some folk have such a bee in their bonet over it.

If you don't trust your GM's decisions, get a better one or play with people you trust!

That does bring up one interesting observation, however. What if you hardly ever play with people you trust? What if you really only play regularly at gaming conventions? The question of fiat becomes a more touchy one then. To quote Mr.T, "I pity the fool who only plays at conventions," but maybe that explains why some folk really have a problem with it?

The rules don't help if you don't agree with the sense of logic your GM has. Three of my players always agree with me about all of my rulings, all the time. One of them occasionally doesn't, but only because I step out of the rules, another always disagrees with everyone, and to him I'm shitty. There isn't any amount of rules following that will change that.

Quote from: King of Old School;300596Notwithstanding that I know exactly who Old Geezer is, I'm not sure I see how one conflicts with the other.  I'm pointing out that plenty of people who know and like OD&D would ascribe to it exactly the same traits I do, albeit in a more reverential way.

KoOS

So, you don't have an actual point then.

Quote from: Old Geezer;300598To you.

Others may see things differently.

Like as in "a construction kit for a game".

Yeah, and a construction kit for a game isn't a game, unless the game you're playing is Construct a Game: the Game.  To say that a handful of components and a finished product are meaningfully indistinguishable entities is absurd.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;300604Yeah, and a construction kit for a game isn't a game, unless the game you're playing is Construct a Game: the Game.  To say that a handful of components and a finished product are meaningfully indistinguishable entities is absurd.

KoOS

Therefore, GURPS and FUDGE aren't games.

Quote from: StormBringer;300603So, you don't have an actual point then.

Your inability to grasp the obvious does not connote the non-existence of the obvious.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;300604Yeah, and a construction kit for a game isn't a game, unless the game you're playing is Construct a Game: the Game.  To say that a handful of components and a finished product are meaningfully indistinguishable entities is absurd.

KoOS

You know, it's nice that you just took the first sentence of my post on "you don't understand" while not answering its actual points, because they explain what you don't acknowledge here:

The "game" here is what's actually happening around the table.
No rulebook, ever, constitutes "a game" on its own. It's just a tool helping you play a game with your friends. The GM and players are the ones who make the actual game happen, and OD&D more than any other game actually considers this simple fact a defining feature of RPGs.

Saying "OD&D requires the referee to fill in the blanks" is just saying "this is a game about a bunch of people around the table playing make-believe with the help of a bunch of dice and arbitrary rules put on paper. Don't forget you are the guys who make the game happen. Make judgment calls".

Quote from: StormBringer;300605Therefore, GURPS and FUDGE aren't games.

GURPS is a game. FUDGE is not (while FATE is).

EDIT: I'm not trying to get into the middle of the argument here, I just see this as a fairly obvious truth.

Quote from: StormBringer;300605Therefore, GURPS and FUDGE aren't games.

GURPS is a game; Fudge is a toolkit for creating games.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;300610GURPS is a game; Fudge is a toolkit for creating games.

KoOS

So, how is GURPS a game?  Last I checked, there is a damn load of heavy lifting to do after you have a character in hand.

Quote from: King of Old School;300604Yeah, and a construction kit for a game isn't a game, unless the game you're playing is Construct a Game: the Game.  To say that a handful of components and a finished product are meaningfully indistinguishable entities is absurd.

KoOS

RPG systems are not games.  They are just methods for resolution of conflict when an impartial methodology is needed.

They are frameworks for creating your own game.  Some may try to account for more situations than others, some may be specialized to accomodate certain types or genres of game than others.  Some might even have example games (adventures) to show you how to put your game together.  But a system is not a game.

The GM and the group make the game (i.e. the adventure or campaign).

Quote from: Benoist;300608You know, it's nice that you just took the first sentence of my post on "you don't understand" while not answering its actual points, because they explain what you don't acknowledge here:

The "game" here is what's actually happening around the table.  No rulebook, ever, constitutes "a game" on its own.

I didn't acknowledge it because I believe it to be a rhetorical device rather than a useful definition.  If you want to say that D&D, the actual product you can buy and pick up and read, is not a game, well, you're using words in a way that IMO isn't conducive to useful discussion between us.  Just like when you defined the word "game" as "[any] activity that provides entertainment or amusement."  What's the point?  It's not even a disagreement, we're having two completely separate conversations that happen to be in the vicinity of one another.

KoOS

Quote from: StormBringer;300612So, how is GURPS a game?

How is GURPS not a game?  What does it lack?  And who said that heavy lifting was incompatible with being a game?

KoOS

Quote from: KenHR;300613RPG systems are not games.  They are just methods for resolution of conflict when an impartial methodology is needed.

As I said to Benoist, I think at this point we're on sufficiently different wavelengths (terminology-wise, at least) that going further isn't going to be terribly fruitful.  No harm, no foul.

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;300616How is GURPS not a game?  What does it lack?  And who said that heavy lifting was incompatible with being a game?

KoOS

You did, in fact.  OD&D is a 'beta test' in your opinion because:

Quote...key elements of true "Old School" RPGs (like OD&D) is that they require the GM to "fill in the blanks" to be playable...

meaning that the heavy lifting part excludes it from being a game.  I don't see that GURPS has a significantly greater amount of rules.  Without the supplement books, GURPS is no more or less a 'beta test' than OD&D.

Quote from: King of Old School;300615I didn't acknowledge it because I believe it to be a rhetorical device rather than a useful definition.  If you want to say that D&D, the actual product you can buy and pick up and read, is not a game, well, you're using words in a way that IMO isn't conducive to useful discussion between us.  Just like when you defined the word "game" as "[any] activity that provides entertainment or amusement."  What's the point?  It's not even a disagreement, we're having two completely separate conversations that happen to be in the vicinity of one another.

KoOS

I do indeed mean to say that the actual rulebooks are not a game, but "handbooks", "guides" and "manuals", as their titles clearly state, to actually play a role-playing game.

That my words are not conducive to useful discussion is a choice you're making for yourself - I have no responsibility in it. These words make sense to me and a whole bunch of folks, among which the very grognards you seem to target, because that's what those words actually mean in the context of OD&D and, I believe, role-playing games in general.

If anything, I think you're the one who's ascribing such narrow definitions to the terms we're using as to basically reject any productive exchange we might otherwise have had.

Considering a rulebook to be "a game" in and of itself isn't a rhetorical jest on your part, I believe, but a concept I actually disagree with and attempt to address directly. I just wish you would return the favor.

Quote from: StormBringer;300618You did, in fact.

No, I assure you that you can play GURPS straight out of the book without having to add anything beyond what's required to play any RPG (e.g. the immediate situation in which the PCs find themselves).  In fact, it strives to be complete to a degree that many find distasteful (visit any GURPS thread on RPG.net for examples).

But then, I expect that you know this to be true and are being disingenuous.  Such is life.

KoOS

Quote from: Benoist;300619Considering a rulebook to be "a game" in and of itself isn't a rhetoric jest on your part, I believe, but a concept that I actually disagree with and attempt to address directly. I just wish you would return the favor.

Alas, I'm not interested in returning the favour.  I'm not interested in "converting" you or any such nonsense, and believe me when I tell you that you aren't capable of changing my mind either.  We fundamentally disagree, and that's the end of it.

Though if you really feel the need to tilt at windmills, I invite you to visit any mainstream game store and try to convince the staff that Monopoly and Clue aren't games; feel free to time how long it takes before they tire of listening to you and ask you to leave.  It's a genuinely interesting thought exercise!

KoOS

How is the GURPS Basic Set (Campaigns and Characters books only) a game, rather than a framework for building one?  What's at stake when you use only those materials?  What are the goals for the participants?

Where's the game in a pile of rules if those rules aren't applied to achieve an objective?

GURPS by itself is not a game.  It's a rulebook.  The rulebook gives one a framework to make a game (i.e. entertainment activity in which the participants are trying to achieve a goal against opposition).

If a pile of rules is a game, then the copy of the NYS Workers' Comp Insurance Manual sitting at my elbow right now must be one bigass thrill ride.

Quote from: King of Old School;300623Though if you really feel the need to tilt at windmills, I invite you to visit any mainstream game store and try to convince the staff that Monopoly and Clue aren't games; feel free to time how long it takes before they tire of listening to you and ask you to leave.  It's a genuinely interesting thought exercise!

KoOS

Monopoly and Clue aren't just rulebooks, but actually contain games.

GM Fiat? No, Chrysler Fiat. You not read news?

Quote from: King of Old School;300623Alas, I'm not interested in returning the favour.

That's a choice you're making. You can hold whatever you think as true if you want and refuse to confront a different point of view, but then, don't tell me what people who like OD&D think, say or imply. In this particular instance, it's obvious to me you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and it shows.

KoOS sounds like this guy (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=7239&page=1) (who was promptly taken to task, rightly, by some of the major Forge/Story Games personalities for being a dork).

Quote from: King of Old School;300592When people on Grognardia claim that one of the key elements of true "Old School" RPGs (like OD&D) is that they require the GM to "fill in the blanks" to be playable, that's a tacit admission that the games as published are incomplete beta versions.  

No. It means it's the sort of game that's best played with a lot of latitude for personal judgement calls and customization.

A game that needs personal judgement calls and customization is not incomplete or unfinished. It just isn't as airtight as a some people prefer their games to be.

Quote from: Benoist;300629That's a choice you're making. You can hold whatever you think as true if you want and refuse to confront a different point of view,

Obviously.  Your point of view is terribly uninteresting to me, and not terribly useful either -- after all, you're the guy who proposed a definition of "games" upthread that would encompass watching TV alone in the dark, or scratching your feet.  Trust me when I say that I have an almost infinite number of better uses of my time than confronting your point of view.

Quotebut then, don't tell me what people who like OD&D think, say or imply.

Why not?  Have you been given some sort of magical mod power to determine what constitutes acceptable commentary on TheRPGSite?

...

... No, I thought not.  So refute my comments if you want to, but if you're going to talk about something different than what I'm talking about you'll have to find another dance partner.

QuoteIn this particular instance, it's obvious to me you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and it shows.

It's obvious to me that you're a cunt.  Again.

KoOS

This thread having devolved into a circular pissing contest over definitions of terms ill-defined in the first place, I kill it and take its stuff.

This is a new era, OG...

HEALING SURGE!!!!!!

Quote from: King of Old School;300530Just once, I'd like to see someone actually address this...

KoOS

The primary reason why you don't often see GM Fiat used as the rationale for abandonment of system is because, ironically enough, the defense of GM Fiat is typically used to prop up a RPG product.  I'm sure we've all seen the following arguments:

"Just ignore what you don't like."

"It's not broken, just house rule it."

"Any RPG is great with a great GM."

"System X is great, you just had a shitty GM."

The defense of GM Fiat precludes any objective and constructive discussion about the products in our hobby.  It allows any product to be proclaimed the greatest ever.  It is used to siphon away the merit of the GM and ascribe it to the product.

With the defense of GM Fiat, any product, now matter how ill conceived and poorly designed becomes the equal of any other, no matter how well thought out and executed.

Yes, it's all a conspiracy...

Quote from: King of Old School;300637It's obvious to me that you're a cunt.  Again.

I have no patience with people who claim to know what they're talking about when they don't, are corrected, and then pretend that whatever's explained to them doesn't make sense.

You already did this in the "Evolution of Rules over GM" debate. You throw a basically flawed assumption, and then, when your assumption is discussed as being flawed, you ascribe twisted motives (rhetorical and otherwise) to the people disagreeing with you and keep evading the arguments until you finally claim the opinions are so divergent that all discussion is pointless.

Well, man up, my liege. Tell me when you're ready to make an actual argument, not an assumption, and stand by it without evading the actual discussion.

Quote from: flyingmice;300572In other words I agree. Roleplaying without rules is not a game.

Aren't safe words, rules ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: One Horse Town;300439If you don't trust your GM's decisions, get a better one or play with people you trust!

For me, it's not about decisions, it's about that one decision. You know, that one. The one you're convinced is utterly, entirely wrong. For example, I shapeshifted into a bear in one game and the GM said I was slow. Bears aren't slow. They're just not.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;300665For me, it's not about decisions, it's about that one decision. You know, that one. The one you're convinced is utterly, entirely wrong. For example, I shapeshifted into a bear in one game and the GM said I was slow. Bears aren't slow. They're just not.

Seanchai

If that's just that "one" decision, then why not just move on and enjoy the rest of the game?

Quote from: David R;300655Aren't safe words, rules ?

Regards,
David R

Damn David, are you games that intense that the players needs a safe word? :p

Quote from: Drohem;300672Damn David, are you games that intense that the players needs a safe word? :p

I dunno. My players keep mumbling, "think of a happy place, think of a happy place".

I keep slapping them. There is no happy place. "Fuck immersion, man! Fuck emulation ! We are Gygax's unwanted children? So be it! First you have to give up, first you have to *know*... not fear... *know*... that someday your character is gonna die."

Regards,
David R

Let's set aside semantic arguments about what is a system and what is a game and all that shit. Semantics is what you do when you're trying to avoid discussing the actual point.

Quote from: Benoist;300483This. I agree with most of what Kyle was talking about but his conclusion. It totally is about trust between the participants at the game table, and their individual capacities to not be asses to each other.

The thing is that trust is not blind trust; I may trust my buddy, but that doesn't mean I believe or agree with everything they say, or think that their judgment is flawless.

So we have the common rules laid out for some consistency, and the GM bases their decisions on those on common law principles: "given the rest of the rules, what is consistent with them? And what about common sense?"

And as with a common law magistrate, the GM listens to arguments from those involved. The barristers in a court trust the magistrate, but that doesn't mean they agree with everything they decide, or that they don't try to influence them.

That's human nature.

Quote from: Old GeezerThere were no rules for this because we thought there couldn't be rules for everything.

Judging by the few thousand pages of rules in games like GURPS and D&D3.5/4e, geeks still don't realise this :)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300708The thing is that trust is not blind trust; I may trust my buddy, but that doesn't mean I believe or agree with everything they say, or think that their judgment is flawless.

So we have the common rules laid out for some consistency, and the GM bases their decisions on those on common law principles: "given the rest of the rules, what is consistent with them? And what about common sense?"

And as with a common law magistrate, the GM listens to arguments from those involved. The barristers in a court trust the magistrate, but that doesn't mean they agree with everything they decide, or that they don't try to influence them.

That's human nature.

*nod* I agree.

Quote from: David R;300704I dunno. My players keep mumbling, "think of a happy place, think of a happy place".

I keep slapping them. There is no happy place. "Fuck immersion, man! Fuck emulation ! We are Gygax's unwanted children? So be it! First you have to give up, first you have to *know*... not fear... *know*... that someday your character is gonna die."

Regards,
David R

:D hehehe.... someone more clever than I can make the appropriate Gygaxian-Bushido jokes here.

Quote from: Seanchai;300665For me, it's not about decisions, it's about that one decision. You know, that one. The one you're convinced is utterly, entirely wrong. For example, I shapeshifted into a bear in one game and the GM said I was slow. Bears aren't slow. They're just not.

Was there a rule for that? If not, then no matter how idiotic the GM's ruling, he wasn't breaking the rules.

The people who complain about "GM Fiat" often elide the distinction.

Make up your mind: is the problem that the GM breaks the rules, such as they are? Or is it that there's too much stuff which isn't covered by the rules, and the GM has final say over that stuff?

For the technically-minded, this post of mine (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=292444&postcount=235) from an earlier thread is relevant. But the sum of it is: all RPGs have stuff that isn't covered by the rules, which means that somebody has to decide by "Fiat". Maybe it's not the GM who decides--but whoever it is, there's no mechanical guarantee they'll decide in a way you find acceptable.

Quote from: King of Old School;300620No, I assure you that you can play GURPS straight out of the book without having to add anything beyond what's required to play any RPG (e.g. the immediate situation in which the PCs find themselves).  In fact, it strives to be complete to a degree that many find distasteful (visit any GURPS thread on RPG.net for examples).

But then, I expect that you know this to be true and are being disingenuous.  Such is life.

KoOS

Looks like my third edition Basic Set book is defective, then, because I am missing the chapter with dwarves and other races.  I can't seem to find the chapter on monsters and encounters, either, and there are only ten pages of spells.  I guess it isn't really geared towards fantasy.  There should be quite a bit on vehicles, then.

Hmmm...  Odd.  A bunch of pages in the middle on combat, but then four pages on vehicles, followed by a single page chapter on flight.  That seems awfully...  I dunno...  incomplete?  It's almost like the GM would have to fill in a bunch of stuff with their own rules or something.

So, in order to play in a fantasy campaign, the GM would have to write up the rules for all the races, write up the rules for all the monsters, write up a bunch of spells... Oh, almost forgot, go through the skills list and make note of what is appropriate.  I guess you can just crack the book and start playing, but it looks like the GM will be doing a lot of rulings during play.

Now I found them.  It says under the Magic Entities section that I can find thorough listings in GURPS Fantasy Bestiary and GURPS Magic, which, along with GURPS Grimoire, is apparently where I can find additional spells beyond the 97 they list.  The Basic book only lists two magical entities, and that seems kinda boring after a while. And I lucked onto the section where it says many other races are detailed in the Fantasy Folk source book.  Or, of course, they will be detailed in whatever GURPS campaign supplement I am using.

It seems like I would need those last two magic books in order to have an interesting and integrated set of mechanics for magic, and that first book to have a fair number of monsters for players to fight.  Of course, the Fantasy Folk is needed to have an assortment of races.  Four books, then, plus a campaign book if one catches my eye, and the Basic book.  Six books, then, and I am ready to play.

Too bad OD&D couldn't have gotten a bit of what those six books offer into their set of three digest sized booklets.  It would have been more of a game, rather than just a 'beta test' of a game.

Quote from: Seanchai;300665For me, it's not about decisions, it's about that one decision. You know, that one. The one you're convinced is utterly, entirely wrong. For example, I shapeshifted into a bear in one game and the GM said I was slow. Bears aren't slow. They're just not.

Your game interface was a person. In this case, the person made a bad judgement.

Some of us would rather expose ourselves to bad judgement calls than subject every game situation to the authority of a rule book. Some of us find rule-flipping and rule-memorization and rule-interpretation to be tedious and unfun.

Better to have a quick decision by a flawed person who understands the context of the situation, than a reference to an airtight system that cannot possibly take the unique game context into account.

Quote from: Benoist;300667If that's just that "one" decision, then why not just move on and enjoy the rest of the game?

Because, being human, people expect that it'll happen again. And, really, given enough time, it will.

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;300718Was there a rule for that? If not, then no matter how idiotic the GM's ruling, he wasn't breaking the rules.

Are we talking about GMs breaking rules or why, in general, people seem to prefer rules to GM fiat?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;300718Make up your mind: is the problem that the GM breaks the rules, such as they are?

No, I didn't mention rules at all. I mentioned a specific example in which the GMs

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;300718Or is it that there's too much stuff which isn't covered by the rules, and the GM has final say over that stuff?

No. Again, it's not that the GM decides things that aren't covered by rules, but the GM gets things wrong.

Seanchai

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300708So we have the common rules laid out for some consistency, and the GM bases their decisions on those on common law principles: "given the rest of the rules, what is consistent with them? And what about common sense?"

And as with a common law magistrate, the GM listens to arguments from those involved. The barristers in a court trust the magistrate, but that doesn't mean they agree with everything they decide, or that they don't try to influence them.

This.

A hundred thousand times, this.

Quote from: Seanchai;300780No. Again, it's not that the GM decides things that aren't covered by rules, but the GM gets things wrong.

Seanchai

So do game designers, and people who think that their GMs are wrong, and pretty much everyone else. So what?

Quote from: Seanchai;300779Because, being human, people expect that it'll happen again. And, really, given enough time, it will.

(...) No. Again, it's not that the GM decides things that aren't covered by rules, but the GM gets things wrong.

Seems to me it's a problem of trust in a human's ability to make better judgment calls than a set of rules on paper.

I don't think a competent GM makes more flawed judgment calls than rules. Quite the contrary, actually, given that rules are such broad brush strokes based on vague, theoretical situations rather than particular evaluations of situations as they occur in the game.

When I read the kind of stuff I quoted here, that really makes me wonder how the person who wrote this came up with this belief in the first place. It can't be just because of a bear's movement rate.

Quote from: David R;300655Aren't safe words, rules ?

Regards,
David R

I'd say that, if anything, they are rule breakers because they are intended to halt play (either temporarily or permanently).

Can you expect the judgement call to work the same every time?  If so, it's more or less a rule, a homegrown rule outside the scope of the original game, but at least it's part of the common language of everyone at the table.

If the call isn't the same every time, despite the same circumstances, it's GM Fiat: arbitrary, preferential, capricious, and unfounded.  The whole idea behind GM Fiat is that it's not in the rules, it goes against the rules, and there is no way to justify it by the rules.  Considering everyone else has to play by the rules, it's a complete violation of the agreement of play when the GM gets to violate everything willy-nilly on the fly.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300808Can you expect the judgement call to work the same every time?  If so, it's more or less a rule, a homegrown rule outside the scope of the original game, but at least it's part of the common language of everyone at the table.

If the call isn't the same every time, despite the same circumstances, it's GM Fiat: arbitrary, preferential, capricious, and unfounded.  The whole idea behind GM Fiat is that it's not in the rules, it goes against the rules, and there is no way to justify it by the rules.  Considering everyone else has to play by the rules, it's a complete violation of the agreement of play when the GM gets to violate everything willy-nilly on the fly.

It might be a violation of your "agreement of play", but it certainly isn't mine. The GMs I've had, with very few exceptions, I trust to make any judgment calls they feel they need to, rules or no rules, whatever the circumstances, with the possibility that I the player might never know why they made those calls, because I know them and am confident that would only make judgment calls because the circumstances called for it. My GMs weren't out to get me or the other players, and whether they made judgment calls or not, we almost always had a very enjoyable time. I don't feel the need to make rules about how we use rules. I feel very fortunate that we don't worry about "agreements of play" or "common language", or even "GM fiat", or any other labels that get tossed around like confetti every time this issue gets brought up. We just play the game like we've played it before, and if a situation arises that seems the same but the GM handles it differently we trust that it's for a reason our characters aren't aware of and roll with it. if I had money riding on the issue I might feel differently.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300808Can you expect the judgement call to work the same every time?  If so, it's more or less a rule, a homegrown rule outside the scope of the original game, but at least it's part of the common language of everyone at the table.

Will the circumstances of a judgement call be the same every time? Doubtful.

Rules are set up to fire upon in-game situations in the same way a shotgun does, by providing a wide angle to hopefully catch the target in its burst. GMs are needed to customize those "shotgun burst" rules to the ever-changing and specific situations that happen for each group during game play so that the rules function to the best of their and the GM's ability.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300808If the call isn't the same every time, despite the same circumstances, it's GM Fiat: arbitrary, preferential, capricious, and unfounded.  The whole idea behind GM Fiat is that it's not in the rules, it goes against the rules, and there is no way to justify it by the rules.  Considering everyone else has to play by the rules, it's a complete violation of the agreement of play when the GM gets to violate everything willy-nilly on the fly.

Huh?

I'm sorry, but based upon this statement I've got to wonder if you have ever actually played a RPG or have just talked about them online.

Quote from: jeff37923;300816I'm sorry, but based upon this statement I've got to wonder if you have ever actually played a RPG or have just talked about them online.

The last refuge of a poster here with nothing to say.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300808Can you expect the judgement call to work the same every time?  If so, it's more or less a rule, a homegrown rule outside the scope of the original game, but at least it's part of the common language of everyone at the table.

If the call isn't the same every time, despite the same circumstances, it's GM Fiat: arbitrary, preferential, capricious, and unfounded.  

Why? I mean, if one game session I tell a guy that his dwarf in chainmail can jump over a 10' wide pit on a 1-2 on a d6, and a couple game sessions later I tell a guy that his dwarf in chainmail can jump over a 10 foot pit on a 1-3 on a d6, nobody I game with will notice or care if my call is inconsistent. Because the guys I play with are not number crunchers. They aren't fixated on hard rules and analytical constistency. Not when we play RPGs anyway (boardgames are an entirely different story).

Quote from: Gabriel2;300808Considering everyone else has to play by the rules, it's a complete violation of the agreement of play when the GM gets to violate everything willy-nilly on the fly.

It's not a violation at our table. Because at our table, the agreement to play means we play briskly and with as few stoppages to look up rules as possible. At our table, a GM who kept pausing the game to find the exact ruling would be breaching the shared assumption of play.

I have to admit - I might be bitter too if I couldn't play RPGs with my friends, and instead had to play with acquaintences I didn't trust. That must be truly shitty.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300818The last refuge of a poster here with nothing to say.

Well, in over 28 years of gaming, I've never run into a problem with the players disliking GM fiat at the game table. Not once. We never debated the "social contract" of getting together to game or the "agreement of play" we were suppossed to be operating under. These discussions seem to only appear on the internet, not at the game table in real life.

If the Players thought that the GM was being a dick with the rules, that GM would soon find himself with no Players. I've never seen Players put up with abuse from a GM through "GM fiat" for longer than a couple of sessions. They usually give their opinion of the GM's expertise by not showing up for that GM's games anymore.

Gabriel2, you seem to believe that if a GM does not fully the rules of a game, then that GM is "doing it wrong". Yet you are discounting the use of GM fiat to keep a game running (by avoiding a TPK frex) or to improve the enjoyment of the Players involved in the game.

This is why I think you lack experience in playing or running RPGs.

What Kyle and Old Geezer said is evident to anyone that is familiar with law. No roleplaying game can cover every situation without someone at some point making an adjudicatory ruling on what happens. The same with statutes. Not everything in life can be covered, so you have written rules (in law called statutes and in games called systems) that are used to govern most situations. When a situation comes up that is not covered you look at what a similar rule does and make an educated conclusion on how to handle the situation that wasn't covered by rules. Now how many statutes are necessary varies from country to country just as how much needs to be included in an rpg varies from system to system.

Quote from: jeff37923;300830...

This is why I think you lack experience in playing or running RPGs.

For whatever reason you thought it, accusing someone of having not actually played RPGs isn't exactly civil or productive.

Quote from: The Worid;300837For whatever reason you thought it, accusing someone of having not actually played RPGs isn't exactly civil or productive.

Didn't know I needed your approval. I'll make sure to ask it in the future. :rolleyes:

On a lot of these forums there are people whose only experience with the subjects being discussed comes from other online discussions. Without any real world actual play input into the gaming opinions, the opinion is garbage in my view.

I would and do say that the opinion that GM fiat is "arbitrary, preferential, capricious, and unfounded" comes from limited and negative experiences gaming.

Quote from: jeff37923;300842I would and do say that the opinion that GM fiat is "arbitrary, preferential, capricious, and unfounded" comes from limited and negative experiences gaming.

You're telling me that you've never had a bad GM in your life? If I wanted to, I could take that as evidence that your "only experience with the subjects being discussed comes from other online discussions.". I won't, but if I had, my opinion about you would have had equivalent grounding as yours did about Gabriel2.

Quote from: The Worid;300846You're telling me that you've never had a bad GM in your life?

You can't have it both ways. Either a GM comes up with a bad call every once in a remote while and then I've got to wonder what makes you focus so much on that one bad call and not the rest of the game, or it happens all the time, and then I wonder why you're playing with that GM at all.

Quote from: Benoist;300848You can't have it both ways. Either a GM comes up with a bad call every once in a remote while and then I've got to wonder what makes you focus so much on that one bad call and not the rest of the game, or it happens all the time, and then I wonder why you're playing with that GM at all.

I fail to see how that is relevant to the point I was making.

Quote from: The Worid;300846You're telling me that you've never had a bad GM in your life?

Yes, I have. Several times. I don't stand around and whine about how the use of "GM fiat" made that GM bad. I just left that game and found another that suited me.

Quote from: The Worid;300846If I wanted to, I could take that as evidence that your "only experience with the subjects being discussed comes from other online discussions.". I won't, but if I had, my opinion about you would have had equivalent grounding as yours did about Gabriel2.

See, you are now confusing a bad GM with the idea that "GM fiat" is bad. The two are not the same. Gabriel2 was saying that "GM fiat" was bad, or at least "arbitrary, preferential, capricious, and unfounded". Can a bad GM use "GM fiat" as part of what makes them a bad GM? Yes. How a GM uses "GM fiat" can also define a very good GM. It is all in how it is used. "GM fiat" is a tool to achieve an end result and not the end result itself.

Quote from: jeff37923;300855See, you are now confusing a bad GM with the idea that "GM fiat" is bad. The two are not the same. Gabriel2 was saying that "GM fiat" was bad, or at least "arbitrary, preferential, capricious, and unfounded".

"Fiat" is not a word with neutral connotation as you imply.  On these forums, a lot gets made of how language is used.  People shouldn't just be making up their own definitions willy-nilly.

Visit //www.dictionary.com and look up "fiat."

Quotean arbitrary decree or pronouncement

An arbitrary order or decree.

an authoritative but arbitrary order

Let's look up "arbitrary" too.

Quotesubject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion

having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical

capricious; unreasonable; unsupported

Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

Not limited by law; despotic

Exercised according to one's own will or caprice, and therefore conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse the possession of power.

I've provided quite a few definitions to provide the recurring theme and connotation of the term.  

Fiat is "arbitrary."  Being arbitary is clearly not objective.  In fact, the entire term has extremely negative connotations.  "Unreasonable, capriciousness, tyrannical, and despotic" aren't neutral states.

I'm interpreting the word exactly as it is defined.  This is what it means.  The people who are using crazy moon language are those defending it as a positive thing.

Quote from: jeff37923;300855Yes, I have. Several times. I don't stand around and whine about how the use of "GM fiat" made that GM bad. I just left that game and found another that suited me.

So, because you left, it didn't happen? Is there memory repression involved here?

Quote from: jeff37923;300855See, you are now confusing a bad GM with the idea that "GM fiat" is bad. The two are not the same. Gabriel2 was saying that "GM fiat" was bad, or at least "arbitrary, preferential, capricious, and unfounded". Can a bad GM use "GM fiat" as part of what makes them a bad GM? Yes. How a GM uses "GM fiat" can also define a very good GM. It is all in how it is used. "GM fiat" is a tool to achieve an end result and not the end result itself.

If a bad GM can use it that way, then "arbitrary, preferential, capricious, and unfounded" can be used to describe GM fiat. It doesn't mean that it is necessarily bad (it may have redeeming characteristics), it means that it can be accurately described as possessing those attributes.

By the way, nice dodge, given that I came in criticizing your unfounded accusations of not actually playing RPGs, and you've dragged me into this.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300856I'm interpreting the word exactly as it is defined.  This is what it means.  The people who are using crazy moon language are those defending it as a positive thing.

It's all about perception.  A good GM can fiat and it doesn't bother me one bit.  Focusing too hard on the literal definition is missing the point.  Your literal definition means fuck all when we're talking about a type of game with so many different play styles enjoyed by it's many players.

I'm not defending unreasonable, despotic, unsupported decisions on a GM's part.
I am, however, defending the common sense of letting a GM make informed judgment calls when necessary, and the fact that these judgment calls override the rules when they occur (see rules vs. GM for that).

Quote from: The Worid;300849I fail to see how that is relevant to the point I was making.

That's actually a point I wanted to make earlier, and it just came back to my mind while reading your exchange with Jeff. Consider it as a separate point:

Either a GM comes up with a bad call every once in a remote while and then I've got to wonder what makes you focus so much on that one bad call and not the rest of the game, or it happens all the time, and then I wonder why you're playing with that GM at all.

Quote from: Benoist;300860That's actually a point I wanted to make earlier, and it just came back to my mind while reading your exchange with Jeff. Consider it as a separate point

Ah, I see. All right then.

Quote from: The Worid;300857So, because you left, it didn't happen? Is there memory repression involved here?

It happened, there was no false memory syndrom, I just didn't stick around to suffer through it and then whine about the occurance afterward.

Quote from: The Worid;300857If a bad GM can use it that way, then "arbitrary, preferential, capricious, and unfounded" can be used to describe GM fiat. It doesn't mean that it is necessarily bad (it may have redeeming characteristics), it means that it can be accurately described as possessing those attributes.

But only in those limited circumstances, a tool is only as good as its user. Blaming the tool instead the user for the wrongful use of that tool is nonsensical and childish.

Quote from: The Worid;300857By the way, nice dodge, given that I came in criticizing your unfounded accusations of not actually playing RPGs, and you've dragged me into this.

Dance for me monkey! Dance!

Quote from: Gabriel2;300856"Fiat" is not a word with neutral connotation as you imply.  

This is the only thing you got right.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300856"On these forums, a lot gets made of how language is used.  People shouldn't just be making up their own definitions willy-nilly.

Visit //www.dictionary.com and look up "fiat."


Let's look up "arbitrary" too.


I've provided quite a few definitions to provide the recurring theme and connotation of the term.  

Fiat is "arbitrary."  Being arbitary is clearly not objective.  In fact, the entire term has extremely negative connotations.  "Unreasonable, capriciousness, tyrannical, and despotic" aren't neutral states.

I'm interpreting the word exactly as it is defined.  This is what it means.  The people who are using crazy moon language are those defending it as a positive thing.

That's nice.

Note how instead of giving the reader actual play examples wherin you can demonstrate that this happens in games, you have instead given definitions.

Fuck your semantics. Show me that you aren't some puddinghead who is just regurgitating a line of crap you read on some other forum.

Quote from: jeff37923;300868Dance for me monkey! Dance!

No! My legs are moving against my volition! The funk is overtaking me! NOOO!!!

Quote from: The Worid;300870No! My legs are moving against my volition! The funk is overtaking me! NOOO!!!

Funk? Funk?!?

Damnit, I've already showered twice today! Now I'm going to have to do it again!

:D

Quote from: jeff37923;300872Funk? Funk?!?

Damnit, I've already showered twice today! Now I'm going to have to do it again!

:D

Well be happy that it overtook me, then, O Musical One.

Quote from: Benoist;300804Seems to me it's a problem of trust in a human's ability to make better judgment calls than a set of rules on paper.

There's no problem. Clearly, there are times when a GM will make a better call than written rules. And, clearly, there are times when written rules will provide a better resolution.

This has nothing at all to do with trust. It has to do with perception and preference. Hence my comments about it coming down to not a series of questionable calls, but, really, a few calls that are memorable.

While some folks do prefer GM fiat, the industry and hobby have clearly moved away from such things. Even in cases where games have fewer rules, those sorts of products are increasingly providing players

Quote from: Benoist;300804I don't think a competent GM makes more flawed judgment calls than rules.

So all we have to do is find a "competent GM" every time we play. That's a tall order.

Quote from: Benoist;300804When I read the kind of stuff I quoted here, that really makes me wonder how the person who wrote this came up with this belief in the first place. It can't be just because of a bear's movement rate.

What person and what belief?

Quote from: Benoist;300804I am, however, defending the common sense of letting a GM make informed judgment calls when necessary, and the fact that these judgment calls override the rules when they occur (see rules vs. GM for that).

You don't have to defend it as that sort of thing is here to stay. As many have pointed out, the rules can never include all the situations that will come up in a game. And as a preference, it's no more defensible than a like to chocolate ice cream over strawberry ice cream.

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923;300872Funk? Funk?!?

Damnit, I've already showered twice today! Now I'm going to have to do it again!

:D

The funk is a medicine ball shaped head covered in teets.

Quote from: Seanchai;300879So all we have to do is find a "competent GM" every time we play. That's a tall order.


Seanchai

Bullshit.

If it is that difficult to do, then why play at all?

Quote from: Idinsinuation;300880The funk is a medicine ball shaped head covered in teets.

Now I've got to shower again to get that image out of my brain...

Quote from: jeff37923;300882Bullshit.

If it is that difficult to do, then why play at all?

Word.

GMing (like pimpin') is in fact very easy.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;300880The funk is a medicine ball shaped head covered in teets.

Then let's whip us up some funk shakes, posthaste!

Well, I think I see where you're coming from but.....

Quote from: Seanchai;300879This has nothing at all to do with trust. It has to do with perception and preference. Hence my comments about it coming down to not a series of questionable calls, but, really, a few calls that are memorable.

I still think it has has everything to do with trust. Trust is about how the GM relates to the (most times) diverse preceptions and preferences of his/her players. How GM fiat is applied to make the game fun for everyone even though what constituties fun varies from participant to participant.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jeff37923;300869Fuck your semantics. Show me that you aren't some puddinghead who is just regurgitating a line of crap you read on some other forum.

That's what you're doing.  So, fuck you.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300890That's what you're doing.  So, fuck you.

This just confirms what I suspected.

Quote from: Seanchai;300780Are we talking about GMs breaking rules or why, in general, people seem to prefer rules to GM fiat?

Dunno, you tell me, starting with what you mean by "GM Fiat". That was the point of my post: when people say "GM Fiat" sometimes they're referring to the GM overruling the printed rules. Other times they're talking about the GM making decisions about stuff that isn't covered by the rules.

QuoteNo, I didn't mention rules at all. I mentioned a specific example in which the GMs

Something is missing here...

QuoteNo. Again, it's not that the GM decides things that aren't covered by rules, but the GM gets things wrong.

Look, there are only three ways of dealing with the problem of the GM getting things wrong.

1) Have a rule for everything. ("On p. 143 the speed of a bear is written in black & white.")

2) Let someone else decide things...

a) ...either collaboratively/socially ("The game will have to pause until we agree on the speed of a bear")...

b) ...or via mechanical apportionment of decision-making authority ("Brenda had the high roll, so a bear's speed is whatever Brenda says it is")...

c) ...or via a hybrid ("I'm willing to accept that a bear is slow if you win this die roll, provided you're willing to accept that a bear is fast if I win the die roll", or "my 5 Plot Points say the bear is fast, if you want it to be slow you need to put up at least 6 PPs", or "let's vote on it")

3) Get another GM.

Only option (1) removes the possibility of someone's jackassery slowing down or ruining the game. Unfortunately, it's also impossible without severely limiting the breadth of the game.

Quote from: jeff37923;300855See, you are now confusing a bad GM with the idea that "GM fiat" is bad. The two are not the same.

Absolutely. To continue me and Old Geezer's "magistrate" analogy, just because we have some bad magistrates who've made bad decisions does not mean that the magistrate's power itself is bad.

The difference of course (apart from what's at stake!) is that a magistrate if they're bad, well there's always the Court of Appeal, maybe a couple of them up the chain. They can't all be bad, eventually you'll hit a good one. We don't have that in rpgs, there's just the GM and that's that. Which is why, as Jeff notes, players just vote with their feet.

Quote from: BenoistEither a GM comes up with a bad call every once in a remote while and then I've got to wonder what makes you focus so much on that one bad call and not the rest of the game, or it happens all the time, and then I wonder why you're playing with that GM at all.

When it's just one player who thought it was a bad call is where you get problems. When they all think it's bad, usually there's a big noise and the GM gives in - or they change the way they'll handle it in future, but the stick to the current decision for the sake of their pride.

If the GM simply won't change their decisions in the face of player criticism, sometimes the GM finishes up or postpones the game indefinitely, and ends up being one of those players who's always talking about the awesome game they'll run someday.

If the GM simply won't change the way they GM, and insists on being a GM, gradually they lose their players and are without a group. A few bad GMs manage to have groups, though. Ever see those John West adverts? "It's the fish that John West rejects that make it the best." Well, I see gaming in the same way: it's the gamers we reject that make our groups and campaigns the best.

So the bad GMs who insist on GMing despite players leaving, some of them end up with groups of "the fish John West rejects."  There aren't really enough really bad players to fill all the really bad GMs' groups, though. That's because bad GM or player, it's just basically a stupid person; but stupid people want to spread their stupidity, so there are equal numbers of stupid GMs and players - unless they all game one-on-one, so while some bad GMs can have groups of freaks, most bad GMs end up lonely and take to rpg theory.

Quote from: jeff37923;300892This just confirms what I suspected.

That when you cuss someone they refuse to dance for you?  Yep.  Bright, aren't you?

Examples from play are good. Abstruse theory and semantic arguments, not so useful.

Examples from play are good.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300896.... so while some bad GMs can have groups of freaks, most bad GMs end up lonely and take to rpg theory.

:rolleyes:

Sure, this explains it all.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;3008932) Let someone else decide things...

a) ...either collaboratively/socially ("The game will have to pause until we agree on the speed of a bear")...

This is my favored option. I don't mean that all parts of the game should be subject to collaboration (I'm no Forgie), and ultimately the GM's say is law. However, my groups tend to stop everything when a question comes up, at which point we dive for the encyclopedia (or dictionary, or whatever) to find the proper answer. I acknowledge that this style might not be agreeable to everyone, but I view the learning of arcane knowledge pertaining to the game as part of the fun.

So, in this case, I would be pausing play to find the average real-world speed of a bear, so that we can convert it into play terms and continue; if it takes to long, I would give up and fudge it, of course. Because the answer then corresponds to the real world, there's less of a chance that people will feel cheated.

Quote from: David R;300908:rolleyes:

Sure, this explains it all.

When rpg theorists begin their essays by telling us that,

   "My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated."

or,

   "Roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours."

I think it fair to say it's very likely they're just crap GMs.

When theories of how best to design rpgs and run game sessions are developed by the people who are the crappiest in play, this shapes the kinds of discussions we have. It's like having a cookbook written by someone who always burns their toast. Things that most gamers do instinctively or without much trouble - like accepting GM fiat - become strangely controversial.

Quote from: The Worid;300909This is my favored option. I don't mean that all parts of the game should be subject to collaboration (I'm no Forgie), and ultimately the GM's say is law.

In the example provided, I agree, although an answer better be forthcoming pretty quickly. But really, I don't think we're talking about the speed of a bear, in most cases. It's more like, "How many guards are on the wall?",  "Does the suspect you're tailing give you the shake?", "Does the sheriff listen to you when you tell him about the zombies?", "Do you get in trouble with the authorities for beating up the janitor when you were caught sneaking around the professor's lab?", "Is the secret formula in the safe?"

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300912When rpg theorists begin their essays by telling us that,

   "My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated."

or,

   "Roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours."

I think it fair to say it's very likely they're just crap GMs.

Not at all. It's fair to say their experiences when it comes to gaming is limited. For some gamers the above is spot on. Most times it's a clash of expectations, but they think they have bad players or bad GMs but this does not mean it's everybody experience, although I'm sure most gamers have been through this at one time or another but have realized what they want out their sessions and have found like minded individuals to game with.

QuoteWhen theories of how best to design rpgs and run game sessions are developed by the people who are the crappiest in play, this shapes the kinds of discussions we have.

Well, the games may be based on dodgy design prinicples but most people who play these games don't necessarily subscribe to them. Most of it is just a different approach to gaming. I know I run many Forge games but think the theory behind them are utter bollocks. Of course people like me are totally drowned out by the rhetoric from both sides.

QuoteIt's like having a cookbook written by someone who always burns their toast. Things that most gamers do instinctively or without much trouble - like accepting GM fiat - become strangely controversial.

I don't think gamers have ever just intinctively or without much trouble accepted GM fiat, like most things gaming, it's has always varied from group to group. So-called theorist make the mistake of assuming their experiences are universal.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;300916Not at all. It's fair to say their experiences when it comes to gaming is limited.

Whether their experiences are limited, or their experiences are that every time they play it's awful (the common element in all someone's dysfunctional relationships is themselves), either way if they're unaware of how limited their experiences are, or unaware how crap they are, and so any discussions they have about gaming will come from that self-blindness.

Quote from: David RWell, the games may be based on dodgy design prinicples but most people who play these games don't necessarily subscribe to them.

That's irrelevant to what I said - I said their incomplete and wrong understanding of gaming shaped "the kind of discussions they have."

Crap players can just drift from group to group; crap GMs are more likely to end up without game groups at all. Which leads them, as I said, with no refuge but rpg theory, arguments about "canon" and similar wankery.

None of which says anything about their favourite games in play. James M's favourite game is some sort of old D&D, Abyssal Maw's some form of D&D4e, Settembrini some form of D&D3.5, Ron Edwards' anything he himself wrote, and so on; all of these are quite different games, but all these guys are loons. They're loons in that they ascribe their poor game play experiences to abstract stuff, rather than just to being or playing with dickheads; and they dismiss other people's experiences are meaningless or say they don't really understand them.

The worst sin of the Forge-derived games has little to do with the games as such, but simply their poor writing. The writing is poor because the design notes, play style advice and rules are all mixed together. In this the game writers are not unique, it's characteristic of all vanity writing, writing we do for fun and ego rather than for money.

The poor rpg theory, poor because it's based on incomplete experiences or the person being a or playing with dickheads, this does surprisingly little to influence the game design, but a lot to influence the writing.

Quote from: David RI don't think gamers have ever just intinctively or without much trouble accepted GM fiat, like most things gaming, it's has always varied from group to group.

Of course it varies in degree. But all accept it to some degree.

"You meet in an inn and decide to adventure together."
"No, you can't be a ninja."
"When you fall off the wall, there's a pavement below, and a canal along it. So you've a fifty-fifty chance of hitting the pavement or the canal, roll."
"This weaponsmith will pay... um... one-quarter the retail value for second-hand weapons."
"If you don't roll any attribute above 12, we can say your guy was stillborn, roll another."

Most of these things, players aren't going to blink at. There's a certain level of GM fiat which almost all players will accept. They'll argue it a bit if it goes against their wishes for their character - "but why can't I be a cyberninja in the ancient Mayan world?" - but on the whole these things are accepted. Like "canon", they're rarely controversial in game groups, only in online discussions.

If the GM is obviously ignoring the rules and just deciding everything, then players will usually get upset. That's because it gives a player no basis on which to plan their character's actions; it might work, it might not, it's all up to the GM's whim, the decision they make might go one way this session, another way next session.

But between what almost every player will accept, and pure GM fiat with no rules, there's of course a huge middle ground where most game sessions happen. And most gamers accept that instinctively and without much trouble. There's sometimes a bit of adjustment at the beginning of a new campaign with a new group, but that's usually sorted out within 4 or so sessions - most people compromise, one player may get pissed off and leave, or a truly atrocious GM may have everyone leave. But after that adjustment period, people do accept things.

The thing is that many people when they hear "GM fiat" they think of "arbitrary" and from that think "unpredictable" and "inconsistent" and "random".

I understand this worry. I recently played in a campaign where GM fiat was used to determine xp. We might get 8xp one session and 0xp the next, and in both sessions we'd been active players, nobody had done anything really brilliant or really stupid, etc; it just depended on the mood of the GM. It's not a coincidence, I think, that the same GM inflicted a "rocks fall, you die" of a session's length on us.

So the GM fiat power can be used well - to make the session more fun and fulfilling - or badly. But in practice most GMs use the power alright, and most players accept it. Again, they won't silently accept each and every decision the GM makes - but they'll accept most, and accept the power itself.

Quote from: David RSo-called theorist make the mistake of assuming their experiences are universal.

Of course. But I think that if you game with enough people, you can make some generalisations. We shouldn't expect scientific rigour in these generalisations, but they're still useful anyway. You need a breadth (play with lots of gamers) and depth (lots of time with a few gamers) of experiences to be able to make these generalisations.

If someone's stated experiences are that most gamers they meet are tired, bitter and frustrated, or that a session is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours, then either that person has gamed with few people and they were just unlucky, or else the person is an annoying dork. So either they're incompetent or dorks, and in both cases their game play or design advice won't be very helpful to us. That won't stop them trying to give it to us, of course, because they have no group to keep them busy.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300912When rpg theorists begin their essays by telling us that,

   "My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated."

or,

   "Roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours."

I think it fair to say it's very likely they're just crap GMs.

When theories of how best to design rpgs and run game sessions are developed by the people who are the crappiest in play, this shapes the kinds of discussions we have. It's like having a cookbook written by someone who always burns their toast. Things that most gamers do instinctively or without much trouble - like accepting GM fiat - become strangely controversial.

I really like how you started out, but not where you ended up.  As we've been through before, DM fiat isn't a game.  It is exactly what most real world roleplaying is: a teaching activity.  However, as fantasy roleplaying, as opposed to non-hobby, real world roleplaying has no actual reality in which to test the validity of the behavior roleplayed, the determination of successful roleplaying is entirely fantasy.  But that's the big difference between roleplaying in the real world and in hobby RPGs: our roleplaying has no bearing on real world roles.  So in order to allow success roles must be defined prior to play by the game designer.  Players cannot successfully play roles that were not determined beforehand.  This is why modules and campaign settings need game designers to create them before play.  Making this DM fiat is changing success in the game into a matter of pleasing the DM, not determining the correct action.  (it is this distinction that is attacked, albeit deceitfully, under the rubric of "Despot DMs")  

In the real world, it is generally accepted that a teacher who uses roleplaying will not lie to his or her students.  And even if they do lie those lies can be determined through playing the same roles in our actual world - living in reality being the only time we are ever roleplaying 100%.  In fantasy/hobby roleplaying that verification is impossible as the roles are fantasy fictions, not culturally held fictions.  So the game elements must be not only be prepared and designed beforehand, but must also be followed truthfully throughout in order for Players to have a game to succeed within.


What I did like about your post is how you rightly characterize Forge theory and theorists.  In general, many tend to hate roleplaying games and people who roleplay... but disguise their disgust by attempting to alter others points of view to their own. This is done by using the second definition of roleplaying instead of the one our games and game designs have used since the start.  Unfortunately, this second definition, "character portrayal" instead of "playing a role" is the one our hobby has been historically misled to believe they are doing.  

The Forge theories are not bad theories.  They are simply inaccurate when it comes to explaining the first 35 years of roleplaying games and why they were designed in the manner they were.   They are only accurate to their own definition of roleplaying, a divergent-design definition. This is almost certainly intentional as the high quality of game design of non-Indie games is pretty blatantly obvious when Forge theories are tossed aside and the actual (first) definition of roleplaying is used.

Make no mistake.  I am agreeing with you. The Forge site and its theories are a hit job meant to alter the entire hobby of roleplaying games. But it is an intelligent one.  One that uses it's knowledge as a form of propaganda.  It is intelligent because its' theory is fully fleshed out and understanding and elucidating of roleplaying, but leaves half of everything about roleplaying by definition, and roleplaying game design under that prior definition, by the wayside.  This is how propaganda works: explain all the positive details from one's own biased position, while displaying the other side with as few details as possible making it appear dubious.  Only enough is conveyed to portray the other side, other ways of game design in our case, as imbecile.  Forge theory does this narrowly defining the term "roleplaying" to the one definition While Wolf and other Theatre gamers use. Not the one used by D&D and most of the rest of the tabletop community.  The theory appears fully inclusive because no shadow of the past it included under rightful terms or definitions (even other game definitions were entirely rewritten).  I believe the theory quite deliberately leaves out the entire second half of roleplaying and roleplaying game design.  I say deliberately, because the Big Model and GNS were clearly meant to attack GDS, a theory they knew well and were attempted to disprove with GNS in order for the "story-tellers" side of the 90's feud, the narrativists, to win.  

Sadly, RPGs in total have lost because of the ascendancy of Forge theory.  Not because theatre roleplaying games aren't fun and are seeing a new form of RPGs come to fruition.   But because both sides of the term RP and both sides of RP game design are fundamentally supportive of our hobby and Forge game designs are demonstrably inaccurate when it comes to achieving the first definition of rolepaying for RPG game design.  (which makes sense when the objective is different)

Good roleplaying games are possible under both design tropes, but all the false arguments about "30 years of bad design" and how we finally have "objectively good game design" is exactly what it appears to be: bullshit lies based on half truths.  Most Forgies are fully versed when it comes to parroting back arguments of the Big Model originally designed to remove traditional, D&D-loving, tabletop-playing RPGers almost a decade ago.  What most do not know is how roleplaying games were so excellently designed before the Forge turned the world on its' head and altered definitions to alter understandings.  Look up roleplaying in the encyclopedia.  Determine why Roleplay Simulation is what our RPG hobby has been doing for the past 30+ years.  And recognize the ingenious accomplishments of traditional, convergent-designed RPGs.  And I think you will be able to walk over most folks who simply repeat arguments they couldn't think up themselves.

My other advice to you is to give up believing a GM Fiat activity can qualify as a "game" by any definition.  You don't have to, of course.  Nor do you need to change the manner in which you play.  But if you wish successfully argue against folks who jabber back Forge-spin, then you're going to need to stop believing a game can happen where any person is allowed to change the rules at any time during play.  This is the charge of CalvinBall against DM Fiat.  And why I think the term Referee has returned as referees do not make up rules, but rather strictly follow and enforce them.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300912When rpg theorists begin their essays by telling us that,

   "My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated."

or,

   "Roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours."

I think it fair to say it's very likely they're just crap GMs.

Saddly, I find there is a lot of truth in those statements, and that is speaking from both sides of the GM screen. In the middle of this there are good times as well - good games, fun games, crazy games - and that's what keeps me coming back, but there is also a lot of "20 minutes of fun packed in four hours" out there, and sometimes it's even worse than that.

I am perfectly happy to concede that I am a crap GM. For every game I've run that has worked well there are plenty more which just haven't. I am also willing to condede that I may be a fussy player. But in these years I've never stumbled into that magical land where the GM are all good and all the games consistently fun.

Quote from: howandwhy99;300926I really like how you started out, but not where you ended up.  As we've been through before, DM fiat isn't a game.

I never said it was, all on its own. It's just part of a game session, a game session which include a bit of roleplaying, a bit of rules, a bit of imaginary combat, some other conflicts, some puzzles, some dilemmas, and so on.

Quote from: howandwhy99My other advice to you is to give up believing a GM Fiat activity can qualify as a "game" by any definition.

Alone, it doesn't. But so what? I never said it did.

Quote from: howandwhy99if you wish successfully argue against folks who jabber back Forge-spin you're going to need to stop believing a game can happen where any person is allowed to change the rules at any time during play.

It's not "any person", it's "the GM, with the consent of the players."

When children play games, they constantly adjust the rules and style of play to make the game "fairer"; which to them means that everyone gets to participate fully, and has a chance of feeling successful. So in football they give a hard tackle to a big kid, and a soft tackle or none to a small kid. In baseball or cricket they toss a fast ball to the good batter, and a slow ball to the poor batter. Or in chess the better player will focus on taking pieces, or play defensively, rather than going straight for checkmate.

Children change the rules of games all the time; they remain "games".

If you sit down and play Monopoly or Trivial Pursuit with your spouse, you'll probably find each "cheats" to help the other. Because it's not purely competitive, it's social.

Even in more formal games like professional football or boxing, we have weight classes and ability-based divisions. They do that because seeing a heavyweight pound on a featherweight isn't very entertaining compared to two heavyweights or two featherweights.

Roleplaying games aren't organised into leagues with thousands of members, and aren't professional, so we can't do that. We're purely social, so instead of official leagues we just adjust gameplay and rules to keep things interesting. It's still a game.

But it's a social game. Not competitive. If it were competitive, then following the rules exactly would matter. But it's not.

But even if the GM never changes the rules, they still have to fill in the rules, since they can't cover everything. For example, in AD&D1e you could buy a helm for your character, separate to other armour; but there were no hit locations, and no rules for what a helm did to your Armor Class by itself. So the GM had to fill in that blank.

That was obvious and foreseeable, it's just sloppy game writing. Most aren't that obvious, but things always turn up in play, things the game designers never thought of. The GM has to fill in the blanks. That's GM fiat.

Other times, rules will contradict each-other, and the GM must resolve the contradiction. That's GM fiat.

Then during play sometimes rules get ignored. In the DMG, Gygax gives the example of rolling for wandering monsters. If wandering monsters are going to wipe out the party before they get anywhere through the adventure, the roll should not be done, he says. How is this decided? GM fiat.

You can say, "if the GM ever decides anything outside the strict letter of the rules, it's no longer a game!" but that means that the vast majority of sessions played in our hobby over the past 35 years or so were not game sessions. This is the problem with semantic arguments over definitions. You end up narrowing and narrowing the definition until it excludes just about everything, and it's no longer useful for any kind of discussion.

It's best to use words as they're commonly understood.

If I want to argue with Forgers, all I need is common sense, and a depth and breadth of gaming experiences. This lets me do things like the last paragraph.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300922Whether their experiences are limited, or their experiences are that every time they play it's awful (the common element in all someone's dysfunctional relationships is themselves), either way if they're unaware of how limited their experiences are, or unaware how crap they are, and so any discussions they have about gaming will come from that self-blindness.

Not really. Like I said the common element may be a clash of expectations. You got a group of people who like radically different things trying to game together. Most times people will find common ground, but sometimes it's impossible. Someone who likes a collaborative style of gaming will find it difficult or nearly impossible to play with a group which is totally disinterested in this kind of gaming.

So, it's not really about being a crap player or crap GM although I'm sure you would find this kind of play "crap" or any kind of dysfunction, although I will concede that the way how some of these designers express their prefered playstyle, is slightly dysfunctional. And I'm sure you will agree people with limited experices talking about gaming shapes the kind of discussion we have around here or anywhere for that matter.

QuoteThat's irrelevant to what I said - I said their incomplete and wrong understanding of gaming shaped "the kind of discussions they have."

The kind of discussions we have are normally centered around their games. Theory seeps in because most times, the experiences of those who have played their games are dismissed and it's more interesting to talk about what stupid thing a designer claims rather than actually engaging with the actual play experience.

QuoteCrap players can just drift from group to group; crap GMs are more likely to end up without game groups at all. Which leads them, as I said, with no refuge but rpg theory, arguments about "canon" and similar wankery.

No, this is your pet theory. IME experience there are plenty of crap GMs who have groups and discuss their experiences online. It's just that not all of them are talking theory.

QuoteNone of which says anything about their favourite games in play. James M's favourite game is some sort of old D&D, Abyssal Maw's some form of D&D4e, Settembrini some form of D&D3.5, Ron Edwards' anything he himself wrote, and so on; all of these are quite different games, but all these guys are loons. They're loons in that they ascribe their poor game play experiences to abstract stuff, rather than just to being or playing with dickheads; and they dismiss other people's experiences are meaningless or say they don't really understand them.

Well I don't really know what this has to do with anything but I'm always up for someone slagging off Sett and AM. All these guys are ideologically driven gamers, so I think there's a little bit more to it than just being loons. Limited experiences is one thing. A disdain for gamers is another. But then again, it could just be the dysfunctional way they express themselves. However, dismissing other people's experience as meaningless or saying you don't really understand or put it another way, is "crap", is something of the norm around these parts.

QuoteThe worst sin of the Forge-derived games has little to do with the games as such, but simply their poor writing. The writing is poor because the design notes, play style advice and rules are all mixed together. In this the game writers are not unique, it's characteristic of all vanity writing, writing we do for fun and ego rather than for money.

The same could be said for every game out there. IME some Forge games are crap whilst others are pretty good. As I said, many like Forge games or Forge like games, but don't really subscribe to their design philosophies. But I get it, you never played any of them, but you just can't help dismiss the experiences of people who have, as meaningless. Whatever. Say what you want about Forge designers, I don't really know what their motives for designing games are only that some of their games are pretty interesting.

QuoteThe poor rpg theory, poor because it's based on incomplete experiences or the person being a or playing with dickheads, this does surprisingly little to influence the game design, but a lot to influence the writing.

Wait now it's the writing ? You were on firmer ground when it came to the game design.

QuoteOf course it varies in degree. But all accept it to some degree.
There's a certain level of GM fiat which almost all players will accept. They'll argue it a bit if it goes against their wishes for their character - "but why can't I be a cyberninja in the ancient Mayan world?" - but on the whole these things are accepted. Like "canon", they're rarely controversial in game groups, only in online discussions.

But these are really not examples of where people argue over GM fiat, are they?  

QuoteIf the GM is obviously ignoring the rules and just deciding everything, then players will usually get upset. That's because it gives a player no basis on which to plan their character's actions; it might work, it might not, it's all up to the GM's whim, the decision they make might go one way this session, another way next session.

This is more like it.

QuoteBut between what almost every player will accept, and pure GM fiat with no rules, there's of course a huge middle ground where most game sessions happen. And most gamers accept that instinctively and without much trouble. There's sometimes a bit of adjustment at the beginning of a new campaign with a new group, but that's usually sorted out within 4 or so sessions - most people compromise, one player may get pissed off and leave, or a truly atrocious GM may have everyone leave. But after that adjustment period, people do accept things.

I don't know about this kyle. I have noticed that when friends game together this is usually not a problem. But when strangers game together it gets a little complicated. Nobody knows what the other likes or cares what the other likes, for that matter. There's a tendency to seek refuge in rules. I'm not saying that this is always the case, but GM fiat has always been one of the more contentious aspects of gaming.  

QuoteThe thing is that many people when they hear "GM fiat" they think of "arbitrary" and from that think "unpredictable" and "inconsistent" and "random".

Yes.

QuoteSo the GM fiat power can be used well - to make the session more fun and fulfilling - or badly. But in practice most GMs use the power alright, and most players accept it. Again, they won't silently accept each and every decision the GM makes - but they'll accept most, and accept the power itself.

I believe I said something similar upthread. It all depends on the way how a GM relates to the preferences and desires of his/her players.

QuoteOf course. But I think that if you game with enough people, you can make some generalisations. We shouldn't expect scientific rigour in these generalisations, but they're still useful anyway. You need a breadth (play with lots of gamers) and depth (lots of time with a few gamers) of experiences to be able to make these generalisations.

In other words, like I said earlier....their experiences are limited ? Fuck, is it so difficult for you to concede a point.

QuoteIf someone's stated experiences are that most gamers they meet are tired, bitter and frustrated, or that a session is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours, then either that person has gamed with few people and they were just unlucky, or else the person is an annoying dork. So either they're incompetent or dorks, and in both cases their game play or design advice won't be very helpful to us. That won't stop them trying to give it to us, of course, because they have no group to keep them busy.

Well hold on. I said that this is not all there is to it. A lot of the times it's a clash of expectations. I'm not only talking about Forge games here. People like different things about gaming, so the above description of twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours could describe a whole range of possible situations. Someone who can't stand dungeon crawls but likes investigative stuff could very feel like it's twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours.....esp if the only kind of game the other players want to play are dungeon crawls. It gets even worse if this player is not gaming with friends but with a group of strangers.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Soylent Green;300927there are good times as well - good games, fun games, crazy games - and that's what keeps me coming back

You have to focus a bit on the good ones, figure out what made them good, and try to bring more of that to the table more often.

Quote from: SoylentI am perfectly happy to concede that I am a crap GM. For every game I've run that has worked well there are plenty more which just haven't.

Then you're probably just an okay GM.

Have you ever known someone who went from one job to another every few months, and each and every time they tell you, "all my workmates are lazy and stupid, the boss is an arsehole." A workplace or two, that's believable, but when it's every place they ever worked, well then it's probably them. Much the same goes for intimate relationships, when someone tells you that women are all bitches or men are all bastards, etc.

Same deal with gaming. If every game group you've ever been in or run was a miserable mess, well it's probably you.

If every one was a brilliant success, that's probably you, too.

If some of them were good, some not, then you're like most of us.

QuoteBut in these years I've never stumbled into that magical land where the GM are all good and all the games consistently fun.

I don't think many of us have. It's like the perfect job or relationship, it doesn't exist. There are better or worse ones, obviously, but mostly it depends on the people involved making an effort to make the thing good.

Really it all comes down to the people involved. They have to get along, be really interested in the game, and so on. Same as any other voluntary social activity. Nothing mysterious about it, really. It's just people.

Quote from: David R;300931Not really. Like I said the common element may be a clash of expectations.

When a person's expectations clash with everyone they meet...

Quote from: David RThe same could be said for every game out there.

It's not specifically Forger games that mix up design notes, gameplay advice and rules in a messy strew. As I said, it's a characteristic of all vanity press writing, it's muddled stuff. It's true of the first editions of many games, for example Aftermath! from 1981 or so, I've found it unreadable.

Quote from: David RBut I get it, you never played any of them, but you just can't help dismiss the experiences of people who have, as meaningless. Whatever.

Except that I have played them (specifically, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard and My Life With Master - I've read Burning Wheel, which is more than the guy who lent it to me with strong praise could manage), and I don't dismiss the experiences of those who've played them.

As I said, the theory seems to affect the games remarkably little; it affects just their writing. Of course this affects the playability of the games - but that's all about their readability, for this reason I've never played Aftermath! which is hardly Forger.

QuoteWait now it's the writing ? You were on firmer ground when it came to the game design.

Except I never mentioned the game design. I'll bullet-point it for clarity.

• if every time you play you and everyone else is miserable, it might be something about gaming, or something about you
• it's probably you
• so you stop gaming
• but you still want to game, what to do?
  
• well, you can argue online about rpg theory or game "canon"
• if those arguments about rpg theory and "canon" encourage you to write an rpg, it'll probably be badly-written

I didn't mention game design as such.

QuoteBut these are really not examples of where people argue over GM fiat, are they?  

No. And that's the point. The argument is not whether GM fiat ought to exist at all - if it didn't, few game sessions would last more than ten minutes - it's just about the best way to do it.

QuoteI don't know about this kyle. I have noticed that when friends game together this is usually not a problem. But when strangers game together it gets a little complicated. Nobody knows what the other likes or cares what the other likes, for that matter. There's a tendency to seek refuge in rules. I'm not saying that this is always the case, but GM fiat has always been one of the more contentious aspects of gaming.  

That's a good insight, I think - that when players don't know each-other well, they look to the rules.

But I take that as an argument in favour of GM fiat, not against it. Because by some well-exercisedfiat in place of or in addition to rules, while it may make some of the players arc up, it'll establish trust in the group. "Look, the GM isn't crazy or stupid or out to get us, we can trust them."

Quotethe above description of twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours could describe a whole range of possible situations. Someone who can't stand dungeon crawls but likes investigative stuff could very feel like it's twnety minutes of fun packed into four hours.....esp if the only kind of game the other players want to play are dungeon crawls.

Sure. It can be taken as "sometimes game sessions aren't much fun." But this (http://mearls.livejournal.com/105311.html?thread=804447#t804447) is the original:

"RPGs in their current format are still "20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours". [...] Many RPG sessions consist of a very limited amount of "roleplaying game", surrounded by a lot of argument, community dialog, eating, and other distractions."

Dancey wasn't talking about a clash of playstyle preferences or expectations. He was saying that this was most sessions we have. Like most rpg theorists, he's unaware of how people actually play.

"There are so many other areas that need work though. Psychological profiling so that the DM knows what kind of players are in the group, and how to craft a session to maximize the fun for that mix of players would be fantastic."

Most GMs already do this, adjusting their campaign's design and the flow and focus of a game session based on players' personalities and their feedback, both formal and informal. "Oh look, everyone is bored, I should put something different in."

They're just clueless.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300928I never said it was, all on its own. It's just part of a game session, a game session which include a bit of roleplaying, a bit of rules, a bit of imaginary combat, some other conflicts, some puzzles, some dilemmas, and so on.

This seems to be the main thrust of your response. To the "game" issue anyways.  I guess I should have read more clearly.  DM fiat cannot be part of a game in the same way an umpire cannot change the rules of baseball during a game.   Umpires enforce the rules and make calls based on physical actions.  In RPGs, referees do the same, but the actions are described when not performed.  

QuoteWhen children play games, they constantly adjust the rules and style of play to make the game "fairer"; which to them means that everyone gets to participate fully, and has a chance of feeling successful. So in football they give a hard tackle to a big kid, and a soft tackle or none to a small kid. In baseball or cricket they toss a fast ball to the good batter, and a slow ball to the poor batter. Or in chess the better player will focus on taking pieces, or play defensively, rather than going straight for checkmate.

Children change the rules of games all the time; they remain "games"

I'd actually like to agree with you and you make a compelling argument.  It's just a losing argument.  Games are defined as following rulesets.  Not simply engaging in any fun activity.  Games have formal rules. If they did not, then every activity in life counts as a game.  That way lies madness.  Then we're equivalent to the Forgies in their delusional "everything in life is story" B.S.  

Not following formal rules means not playing the game.  Otherwise there would be no difference between playing and not playing.

The examples you give are each of players altering strategies, not rules.  

QuoteIf you sit down and play Monopoly or Trivial Pursuit with your spouse, you'll probably find each "cheats" to help the other. Because it's not purely competitive, it's social.

Again, strategies, not rules.  If the rules are changed, those are House Rules.  That's game design. Giving folks handicaps like in bowling or golf isn't cheating.  It's a rule for players of varying ability to enjoyably compete.

QuoteEven in more formal games like professional football or boxing, we have weight classes and ability-based divisions. They do that because seeing a heavyweight pound on a featherweight isn't very entertaining compared to two heavyweights or two featherweights.

Roleplaying games aren't organised into leagues with thousands of members, and aren't professional, so we can't do that. We're purely social, so instead of official leagues we just adjust gameplay and rules to keep things interesting. It's still a game.

Actually the RPGA is a league.  And historically convention tournament games required a self avowed player status: beginner, intermediate, and expert.  Being an expert playing with a beginner isn't nearly as enjoyable.

EDIT: Not as enjoyable as cooperating with others of one's own skill level to succeed at the game.

QuoteBut it's a social game. Not competitive. If it were competitive, then following the rules exactly would matter. But it's not.

Roleplaying is competitive, that's why we have tournaments.  They are team competitions against a preset situation.  Roleplaying is all about displays of skill and ingenuity.

QuoteBut even if the GM never changes the rules, they still have to fill in the rules, since they can't cover everything. For example, in AD&D1e you could buy a helm for your character, separate to other armour; but there were no hit locations, and no rules for what a helm did to your Armor Class by itself. So the GM had to fill in that blank.

This is the GM cheating.  Or making a house rule prior to play.  

QuoteThat was obvious and foreseeable, it's just sloppy game writing. Most aren't that obvious, but things always turn up in play, things the game designers never thought of. The GM has to fill in the blanks. That's GM fiat.

That's the GM cheating.  And bad play.  Players can no longer win except to guess the GM's decision making.  

No rule for helms is not sloppy game writing [design].  By the rules as written, helms simply have no bearing on the roles being played.

QuoteOther times, rules will contradict each-other, and the GM must resolve the contradiction. That's GM fiat.

Rules contradicting each other is bad game design.

QuoteThen during play sometimes rules get ignored. In the DMG, Gygax gives the example of rolling for wandering monsters. If wandering monsters are going to wipe out the party before they get anywhere through the adventure, the roll should not be done, he says. How is this decided? GM fiat.

This is Mr. Gygax giving horribly bad advice.  

QuoteYou can say, "if the GM ever decides anything outside the strict letter of the rules, it's no longer a game!" but that means that the vast majority of sessions played in our hobby over the past 35 years or so were not game sessions. This is the problem with semantic arguments over definitions. You end up narrowing and narrowing the definition until it excludes just about everything, and it's no longer useful for any kind of discussion.

It's 35 years worth of poorly refereed games.  But plenty have been played well and refereed fairly.  Claiming the majority of gamers play poorly isn't a good counterargument.  These games were games with repeated failures on the part of the GMs, often through ignorance.  Those who purposefully cheated with the players desiring them to cheat were not playing games.  

This isn't about narrowing the definition of "game" to exclude how any person or person likes to play RPGs.  It simply is the definition every game of every type uses.  And RPGs have glossed over this to the hobby's detriment.  

QuoteIt's best to use words as they're commonly understood.

I agree with the sentence, but not your understanding of it.  Commonly understood, not following the rules of a game is not playing a game.  Or it cheating.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300933When a person's expectations clash with everyone they meet...

Considering the problem gamers have with getting a group together and the limited number of people interested in this hobby.....you find this difficult to understand ?

QuoteIt's not specifically Forger games that mix up design notes, gameplay advice and rules in a messy strew. As I said, it's a characteristic of all vanity press writing, it's muddled stuff. It's true of the first editions of many games, for example Aftermath! from 1981 or so, I've found it unreadable.

My mistake. I took your "the sin of Forge derived games...." statement to mean.... a statement about Forge derived games.....

QuoteExcept that I have played them (specifically, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard and My Life With Master - I've read Burning Wheel, which is more than the guy who lent it to me with strong praise could manage), and I don't dismiss the experiences of those who've played them.

Fair enough, kyle. You have never talked about your experinces with those games, so I assumed you didn't have any. My bad. Your general hostility towards Forge games and gamers is well documented though, hence I always get the feeling you're dismissing a playstyle you have no interest in.

QuoteAs I said, the theory seems to affect the games remarkably little; it affects just their writing. Of course this affects the playability of the games - but that's all about their readability, for this reason I've never played Aftermath! which is hardly Forger.

Yes, it's hardly Forger.  

QuoteExcept I never mentioned the game design. I'll bullet-point it for clarity.

• if every time you play you and everyone else is miserable, it might be something about gaming, or something about you
• it's probably you
• so you stop gaming
• but you still want to game, what to do?
  
• well, you can argue online about rpg theory or game "canon"
• if those arguments about rpg theory and "canon" encourage you to write an rpg, it'll probably be badly-written

I didn't mention game design as such.

C'mon. You were talking about theory. Are we going to do the semantic dance, now? And as for your bullet points....well, it's your pet theory but I'll play. So in other words if you have crappy experiences as a gamer, the games you design (if you choose to) would be badly written ? *snort* Yeah that makes sense, kyle.

QuoteNo. And that's the point. The argument is not whether GM fiat ought to exist at all - if it didn't, few game sessions would last more than ten minutes - it's just about the best way to do it.

Agreed, so why bring up those examples ? I mean all I said was that the acceptability of fiat varies from group to group not that there shouldn't be any.  

QuoteBut I take that as an argument in favour of GM fiat, not against it. Because by some well-exercisedfiat in place of or in addition to rules, while it may make some of the players arc up, it'll establish trust in the group. "Look, the GM isn't crazy or stupid or out to get us, we can trust them."

Again, I wasn't arguing aginst GM fiat. Each group handles this in a different way.

QuoteSure. It can be taken as "sometimes game sessions aren't much fun." But this (http://mearls.livejournal.com/105311.html?thread=804447#t804447) is the original:

"RPGs in their current format are still "20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours". [...] Many RPG sessions consist of a very limited amount of "roleplaying game", surrounded by a lot of argument, community dialog, eating, and other distractions."

Dancey wasn't talking about a clash of playstyle preferences or expectations. He was saying that this was most sessions we have. Like most rpg theorists, he's unaware of how people actually play.

"There are so many other areas that need work though. Psychological profiling so that the DM knows what kind of players are in the group, and how to craft a session to maximize the fun for that mix of players would be fantastic."

Sure. And you would be right to question and mock the context of Dancey's statement. But then again the conversation has evolved. People may not subscribe to original intent of Dancey's statement but instead have added their own interpretations (experiences) to it.

Regards,
David R

* starts thread on fire *

Quote from: howandwhy99;300926My other advice to you is to give up believing a GM Fiat activity can qualify as a "game" by any definition. . . . But if you wish successfully argue against folks who jabber back Forge-spin, then you're going to need to stop believing a game can happen where any person is allowed to change the rules at any time during play.  This is the charge of CalvinBall against DM Fiat.  And why I think the term Referee has returned as referees do not make up rules, but rather strictly follow and enforce them.

Fiat is such a loaded term. Which is why I prefer discretion.

As noted already, the referee is not just "any person." S/he's the person designated by the rules to adjudicate the rules, to fill in any gaps that arise in play, and in many systems is given explicit responsibility to change the rules as desired for better play. "Better play" will always be solely determined by the people around the table, which also means that sometimes a player will find her- or himself at the wrong table due to differing ideas of what is "better."

Quote from: David R;300889Trust is about how the GM relates to the (most times) diverse preceptions and preferences of his/her players.

How does that work in actual play, however? How does the GM know that I perceive bears to be fast and prefer that the game reflect my perceptions? By the time that comes to the fore, isn't it too late?

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;300893Only option (1) removes the possibility of someone's jackassery slowing down or ruining the game. Unfortunately, it's also impossible without severely limiting the breadth of the game.

Sure, but that doesn't mean folks still don't prefer option one.

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;300915But really, I don't think we're talking about the speed of a bear, in most cases. It's more like, "How many guards are on the wall?",  "Does the suspect you're tailing give you the shake?", "Does the sheriff listen to you when you tell him about the zombies?", "Do you get in trouble with the authorities for beating up the janitor when you were caught sneaking around the professor's lab?", "Is the secret formula in the safe?"

The latter cases aren't really a matter of GM fiat, though, aren't? I mean, it isn't fiat if the GM is operating wholly within his or her bailiwick.

Seanchai

Ah, I think you'll find that a lot of people who rail against "GM Fiat" are talking about exactly those things. I haven't seen the RPGnet thread that inspired OHT to make the OP of this thread, though.

Quote from: howandwhy99;300936Roleplaying is competitive, that's why we have tournaments.  They are team competitions against a preset situation.  Roleplaying is all about displays of skill and ingenuity.

The RPGs I've ran for the last 30+ years have not been at all competitive. With few exceptions, the players in these campaigns did not play in tournaments because they had no interest in competitive RPG play. Most (including myself) thought the idea was somewhat silly.
 

QuoteThat's the GM cheating.  And bad play.  Players can no longer win except to guess the GM's decision making.

There has never been a "winner" or "loser" among the many players I'd had in my campaigns. The players aren't even competing with each other -- although sometimes their characters are in some type of competition with each other in the game.

QuoteThis isn't about narrowing the definition of "game" to exclude how any person or person likes to play RPGs.  It simply is the definition every game of every type uses.  And RPGs have glossed over this to the hobby's detriment.

Yes, RPGs aren't games in the same way chess or poker is a game. IMHO, this is what makes RPGs fun. This is one of the reasons rules lawyers aren't allowed in my games.  They try to turn RPGs into to normal games.

Really, the whole argument is centered around what each and everyone understands when saying "GM Fiat".

I started posting while thinking "GM Fiat" meant "the GM overrides the rules, makes up rules, or makes a decision on his own, without the support of the rules". A GM making judgment calls which may be reasonable, principled, grounded. That, to me, makes complete sense.

To some people, "GM Fiat" seems to mean "any arbitrary decision of the GM, aka determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle", according to the dictionary definition of "arbitrary". When one understands the term in that way, it's a self-fulfilling statement that "GM Fiat is bad", since the decision is not necessary, not reasonable and/or not backed up by anything other than the GM's whim. That's a non-starter for a debate, in my opinion.

What's strange is that some people seem to assume that all decisions made by a GM are by definition "GM Fiat", and that therefore, the GM should never override the rules or try to make reasonable, common sense decisions that may override the rules on some occasions. The rules should always be right. That's a shortcut that I only can explain by past experiences that would have created this belief that whatever decision a GM take, it's gonna be "GM Fiat". I just do not agree with this belief.

That's what this whole discussion comes down to, IMO.

Quote from: Benoist;300982What's strange is that some people seem to assume that all decisions made by a GM are by definition "GM Fiat", and that therefore, the GM should never override the rules or try to make reasonable, common sense decisions that may override the rules on some occasions.

No, although many people are defending GM Fiat in that context.

Note that "fiat" is never a term used when a ruling is reasonable or which has a solid foundational base.  The term is only used when something is unreasonable and groundless.

Notice that many of the defenses of GM Fiat in this thread assume that anytime GM Fiat is good, then it's a legitimate example of the practice.  Any time GM Fiat is bad, then the defenders insist it is not GM Fiat.  It's just some bad GM who never plays.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300983No, although many people are defending GM Fiat in that context.

Note that "fiat" is never a term used when a ruling is reasonable or which has a solid foundational base.  The term is only used when something is unreasonable and groundless.

Notice that many of the defenses of GM Fiat in this thread assume that anytime GM Fiat is good, then it's a legitimate example of the practice.  Any time GM Fiat is bad, then the defenders insist it is not GM Fiat.  It's just some bad GM who never plays.

I really think that the whole thing stems from a disagreement on what the term actually means.

Now, since you understand the term as "arbitrary GM rulings", I have to agree with you that GM Fiat is a bad. It can't be good, by definition.

I would also add that any GM who uses GM Fiat time and time again is by definition a bad GM, since there cannot be any consistency, coherence or reasonable approach to the game play from the players' point of view, other than its inherent randomness.

I guess that a relevant question coming to my mind then is: "how does a GM make sure that the players do not understand his rulings as instances of GM Fiat?", and there, I think I'm back to the trust issue. The GM should build trust with the players by being consistent, reasonable, and principled in his rulings. This allows the players to know what to expect most of the time, and to get over instances where the rulings end up not meeting their expectations.

Quote from: Benoist;300984I guess that a relevant question coming to my mind then is: "how does a GM make sure that the players do not understand his rulings as instances of GM Fiat?", and there, I think I'm back to the trust issue.

I think the quickest way to deal with that is to, whenever making a discretionary ruling, retain it, and use it in all future instances of that situation. In that manner, you create precedents that the players know, so they won't be forced to metagame by trying to guess what you're going to rule.

Of course, if the ruling is bad in the first place, keeping it won't help much. But that's why it's better to have a solid set of rules in the first place that obviate the need for too many houserules.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300983No, although many people are defending GM Fiat in that context.

Note that "fiat" is never a term used when a ruling is reasonable or which has a solid foundational base.  The term is only used when something is unreasonable and groundless.

Notice that many of the defenses of GM Fiat in this thread assume that anytime GM Fiat is good, then it's a legitimate example of the practice.  Any time GM Fiat is bad, then the defenders insist it is not GM Fiat.  It's just some bad GM who never plays.

I said earlier that "GM fiat" is a tool, which can be either good or bad based on how it is used. A good GM will use it in the appropriate manner while a bad GM will use it in an inappropriate manner. You have redefined the term "GM fiat" to only be used in examples of bad GMing. Part of the problem here is your own homemade semantics.

You also still haven't given any examples of your own definition of "GM fiat" in actual game play that you have had.

Quote from: The Worid;300986I think the quickest way to deal with that is to, whenever making a discretionary ruling, retain it, and use it in all future instances of that situation. In that manner, you create precedents that the players know, so they won't be forced to metagame by trying to guess what you're going to rule.

Agreed.

QuoteOf course, if the ruling is bad in the first place, keeping it won't help much. But that's why it's better to have a solid set of rules in the first place that obviate the need for too many houserules.

That's not my preference, because the "solid set of rules", if it comes with boons like the one you describes, also comes with its own share of flaws (rules glut, more focus on metagaming, framing of the game play, more complicated game to get into for newbies, et cetera).

To me, keeping the bad rulings certainly won't help, and that's why it's better to communicate with the players and keep the feedback channel open at all times.

Generally, when I run the game, I obviously try to be fair, consistent and reasonable. If I make a call that doesn't compute with the players, I will generally discuss it with them after the session. The key ingredient here is to listen carefully and be ready to admit it when I'm wrong.

I've never had any problem doing this.

Quote from: Benoist;300984I guess that a relevant question coming to my mind then is: "how does a GM make sure that the players do not understand his rulings as instances of GM Fiat?", and there, I think I'm back to the trust issue. The GM should build trust with the players by being consistent, reasonable, and principled in his rulings. This allows the players to know what to expect most of the time, and to get over instances where the rulings end up not meeting their expectations.

As I thought I said earlier, it's an agreement among the players.

For example, I wouldn't go into an Amber game expecting anything other than GM Fiat to drive proceedings.  On the other hand, a GM defining his game as "D&D4" would have to match the expectations for that game.  d20 rolls would be required to hit.  There would be hit point depletion by distinct rules, etc.

In the latter case, nothing happens purely by GM ruling.  Even those things which happen outside the framework of the rules occur by a sort of informal democratic process and within a non-arbitrary framework.  And things are consistent.  If something applies for someone it applies for everyone, and if it doesn't apply for everyone, there is a distinct reason why.

As such, GM Fiat (even as those mischaracterizing the term represent it) doesn't really apply for discussion of actual play.  The agreement of players at the table is a more important and tangible factor.  If it's GM Fiat and no one at the table cares about how much bullshit it is, is it really GM Fiat?  It's a purely theory based term.  Failing that, it's something used in discussion of commercial products to defend them based on qualities they don't have.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300990As I thought I said earlier, it's an agreement among the players.

For example, I wouldn't go into an Amber game expecting anything other than GM Fiat to drive proceedings.  On the other hand, a GM defining his game as "D&D4" would have to match the expectations for that game.  d20 rolls would be required to hit.  There would be hit point depletion by distinct rules, etc.

In the latter case, nothing happens purely by GM ruling.  Even those things which happen outside the framework of the rules occur by a sort of informal democratic process and within a non-arbitrary framework.  And things are consistent.  If something applies for someone it applies for everyone, and if it doesn't apply for everyone, there is a distinct reason why.

As such, GM Fiat (even as those mischaracterizing the term represent it) doesn't really apply for discussion of actual play.  The agreement of players at the table is a more important and tangible factor.  If it's GM Fiat and no one at the table cares about how much bullshit it is, is it really GM Fiat?  It's a purely theory based term.  Failing that, it's something used in discussion of commercial products to defend them based on qualities they don't have.

"It's this thing, or it's the opposite of this thing, or it's something else entirely, or it's not."

Fuck, dude, compared to you, Dubbya's "When we talk about peace, we're really talking about war" is a clarion of clarity.

Beer, out.

No true Scotsman (http://www.google.com/search?q=no%20true%20scotsman) rules this thread.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;300995No true Scotsman (http://www.google.com/search?q=no%20true%20scotsman) rules this thread.

If it's not Scottish, it's CRRRRAP!

Anyway, I wanted to get back to this:

Quote from: Seanchai;300952Sure, but that doesn't mean folks still don't prefer option one.

(a) Yep, and there you have e.g. full-blown GURPS and probably some other games like D&D 3.5. Personally I like detailed games just fine, but my experience with roleplayers is that most of them can't be arsed to learn the rules in any kind of detail, and they end up seeing the rules as more arbitrary than common-sense rulings. (E.g. the player whose character dies because he never makes use of a Dodge option--the rules' balance is predicated on the notion that you'll actually take advantage of them.) Another issue with this approach, personally as a GM, is that I find myself pushed to make quick decisions. Given time I'm sure I can become completely fluent in a given rules set, but for a while at least the players are going to have to accept that I'll wing it from time to time.

But both those concerns are actually peripheral. No matter how much detail you include regarding facts like the speed of a bear, damage from falling, time you can survive without oxygen, the "detailed" design approach still leaves out the "big picture" questions that frame a given situation--like "does the dude in the Cadillac intend to betray us?" and "if he does, do we find out before it happens?"

This leaves two options. Either:

(b) Narrowly restrict the game to questions which can be answered by the rules. (If all the rules are about concrete stuff bearing on combat and exploration, then limit the game to dungeon crawls and wilderness exploration.)

(c) Create abstract rules to distribute and mediate discretionary authority in any situation.

Carry (b) beyond a certain point, and you might as well be playing a miniatures board game. Meanwhile (c) risks detaching the rules entirely from the fiction, and you still haven't solved the problem of somebody making a nonsensical or arbitrary ruling.

Personally my preference is a modicum of detail combined with trusting the GM to rule sensibly, not arbitrarily, on stuff not covered by the rules, including the "big picture" stuff. I'd also like to supplement that with (b) some "big picture" systems (Burning Wheel has got a few) and (c) some rules interpretations that pay heed to player intent (Talislanta talks about this; Dead of Night does, too). But I like to keep the GM as final arbiter of what's possible or reasonable in areas not covered by the letter of the rules.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;300998No matter how much detail you include regarding facts like the speed of a bear, damage from falling, time you can survive without oxygen, the "detailed" design approach still leaves out the "big picture" questions that frame a given situation--like "does the dude in the Cadillac intend to betray us?" and "if he does, do we find out before it happens?"

This leaves two options. Either:

(b) Narrowly restrict the game to questions which can be answered by the rules. (If all the rules are about concrete stuff bearing on combat and exploration, then limit the game to dungeon crawls and wilderness exploration.)

(c) Create abstract rules to distribute and mediate discretionary authority in any situation.

You need rules to tell you whether or not someone betrays you?

Secondly, those categories are a thinly veiled version "Things I Like/Things I Don't Like", based on phrasing. Moreover, I hardly see why limiting rules to things that actually need rules ("concrete stuff") somehow narrows what the system can be used to play.

Quote from: Seanchai;300951How does that work in actual play, however? How does the GM know that I perceive bears to be fast and prefer that the game reflect my perceptions? By the time that comes to the fore, isn't it too late?

IME communication is vital when it comes to individual perceptions about a game. You're right though that it would probably be too late when it comes to your specific  bear example. But 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. IMO trust does not mean you think the GM will make the "right" - the decision that goes your way - all the time but rather that the lines of communication are always open and that your input as a player could very well effect the way how the GM runs a game. Trust is based on past experience. This is how it works in actual play, IMO.

Regards,
David R

Hopefully you can trust your pals are doing what they believe will make the game more fun... but sometimes people have different ideas about the specifics of what makes something fun.  That's when having a shared understanding of the game you're all sitting down to play (aka "the rules") comes in handy. Having a more "open" DMing style (dice in the open, talk about the rules) can help a lot in this regard as well.

All DMing will invariably require some rulings. RPGs being complex and time being limited, all DMs will forget rules from time to time, or not bother looking up a complex system (Grappling) to keep things running smoothly and efficiently.  I don't think DMs should knowingly ignore rules as a way to tell their own story though (eg. don't let the players kill the star NPC etc).

Quote from: The Worid;301001You need rules to tell you whether or not someone betrays you?

No, I don't. Either I miscommunicated, or more likely, you didn't read carefully. In the post you quoted, I was working from the premise that someone wanted to have rules to obviate "GM Fiat".

QuoteSecondly, those categories are a thinly veiled version "Things I Like/Things I Don't Like", based on phrasing.

Tell me which ones I like and which ones I don't. Then we'll see if you got it right.

QuoteMoreover, I hardly see why limiting rules to things that actually need rules ("concrete stuff") somehow narrows what the system can be used to play.

I did not say that. I said that limiting the play of the game to things that are handled by the rules restricts play of the game.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;301033No, I don't. Either I miscommunicated, or more likely, you didn't read carefully. In the post you quoted, I was working from the premise that someone wanted to have rules to obviate "GM Fiat".

The former. You said: "No matter how much detail you include regarding facts... the "detailed" design approach still leaves out the "big picture" questions that frame a given situation--like "does the dude in the Cadillac intend to betray us?" and "if he does, do we find out before it happens?"". You went on to describe two categories of rule systems. If you wanted to say that the "big picture" aspects of the game were not subject to the rules, you should have been more clear.

D&D 4E sure have handsome books.

Quote from: The Worid;301038The former. You said: "No matter how much detail you include regarding facts...

All in the context of a dialog with Seanchai, read back a bit and you can catch up.

Besides, even if you just read the post in isolation, I'm just saying that the rules don't address those issues. By acknowledging that, am I saying I need the rules to address those issues? No, I'm not.

Quote from: Seanchai;300879So all we have to do is find a "competent GM" every time we play. That's a tall order.

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

Of course, you could take up the responsibility of GMing yourself.

But 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. Because the airtight rules system model (especially when married to a battle-map and miniatures) is pretty much a boardgame with a bit of narrative thrown in.

Quote from: Haffrung;301096then the roleplaying game hobby is pretty much on its deathbed

Hobby or Industry?

"The" Hobby or "YOUR" Hobby?

:)

If playing the games is your hobby, and the games you play requires GMs, and if you can't find a competent GM who you trust, then yes, I mean your hobby is on its deathbed.

If posting game material you'll never use and speculating about gaming on forums is your hobby, it can survive for a long time without GMs GMing real games.

I've just noticed a lot of discussions seem to wander all over the place in regards to Hobby / Industry.  They're really not the same thing - or at least they don't have to be. :)

EDIT:  Hahaha fuck.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;301190Dungeons and Dragons 4e - In previous editions the Cleric was way too powerful so in the interest of game balance they've allowed everyone to do his job leaving him time to be like all the other classes.

Erm, wrong thread, dude.

Quote from: One Horse Town;301194Erm, wrong thread, dude.

Gah fuck.  Opening multiple windows for the loss.  :S

Quote from: Idinsinuation;301197Gah fuck.  Opening multiple windows for the loss.  :S

Botched your multitasking check, didn't you? :D

Quote from: Benoist;301200Botched your multitasking check, didn't you? :D

Hooray for posting at work! haha

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 (http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=kingmaker+problem+group%3Arec.games.board&btnG=Search&sitesearch=).

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

Mmm, not sure I see how that can be. Yes, as I noted above, if you give players enough power, there's less of a chance that a single preconceived plotline will play out to a tedious conclusion, or that players' input will be nullified.

But if all the players can do is specify the speed of a bear, then the GM does have that nullification power. So, your bear's fast: the GM introduces a pack of wolves.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;302410Mmm, not sure I see how that can be.

Pro-player mechanics are limited by the rules. And they are limited - usually, they change dice rolls or allow, conditionally, players to alter one aspect of what's in play. The GM's ability to change the rules or other aspects of the game is limited solely by the "social contract" or his players' tolerance.

To put it more concretely, pro-player mechanics might allow me to alter a running or speed roll. They might allow me to narrate success for chase in bear form for one instance.

The GM can declare that all bears, in every instance, are slow. He can decide they get penalties to chase rolls. He can decide that we don't even make chase rolls. The GM could literally declare that gravity affects bears differently than every other object on the planet.

That's the difference between GM fiat and pro-player mechanics. Again, yes, they're both subject to abuse, but the abuse in one case is much more limited.

Seanchai

Okay, we're probably coming at this from different angles, and without an actual set of rules (or example of play), it's pretty hard to make out. Not all "player-empowering" mechanics are limited by the rules, for example, but you might have something specific in mind for your "pro-player" category.

Whereas in the board game Kingmaker everyone just goes around in circles through England until someone dies of the plague.

RPGPundit

Whereas in the board game Kingmaker everyone just goes around in circles through England until someone dies of the plague.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;302424Okay, we're probably coming at this from different angles, and without an actual set of rules (or example of play), it's pretty hard to make out. Not all "player-empowering" mechanics are limited by the rules, for example, but you might have something specific in mind for your "pro-player" category.

I'm thinking of two broad types. Examples of more freeform systems would be Adventure's dramatic editing and more rules bound ones would be Deadland's chips. What examples are you thinking of?

Seanchai