Quote from: Benoist;741373The reason why this is coming off as very ironic to me is that a wargame like Chainmail uses a referee for the same sort of reason you would have a referee in a role playing game. The game plays are obviously different, but the reason for there to be a human referee are comparable, in that the rules are not the game, and the game isn't the sum of its rules. It saddens me to see that wargames themselves have become more and more of a closed model where all there is to do is to play within the confines of the box.

You have GOT to come to GaryCon and play CHAINMAIL.

Quote from: Benoist;741393I don't see how DM rulings are by their very nature going to be inconsistent from game to game and mechanically unpredictable. It seems to me that inconsistency and unpredictability are predicated on the DM sucking in the first place, which is not a given, whereas people new to DMing learn from their mistakes and become better with time. When in doubt, asking a question is always an option. This is a game where communication matters.

That's part of it.

The other part is "great risk, great reward," which is a principle for financial investments and a lot of other stuff as well.

When I travel, I avoid chain restaurants and go to little local places.

I've had some pretty crappy meals, where McDonald's would have been tastier.

I've also had some truly astonishing food.

If I'm not willing to take the risk of poor food and eat always at McDonald's, I'm going to get consistent results, but I'll never get something truly brilliant.

A lot of people are very, very risk averse, to the point where it becomes ludicrous... they don't want to take ANY risk at ANY time.  When those people hit RPGs... or for that matter, wargames... the results tend to not be good.

You can't win a battle... or a wargame... without risking your troops.

Quote from: BenoistI don't see how DM rulings are by their very nature going to be inconsistent from game to game and mechanically unpredictable. It seems to me that inconsistency and unpredictability are predicated on the DM sucking in the first place, which is not a given, whereas people new to DMing learn from their mistakes and become better with time. When in doubt, asking a question is always an option. This is a game where communication matters.

It's true that asking how the referee will interpret a given move or action is always an option, of course, but I still think that those looking for tactical granularity of a certain type might find the ad-hoc nature of OD&D frustrating.  Consider a situation where a Fighter is debating between four different actions, none of them covered specifically by the rules of OD&D.  Now, he could ask the DM to come up with mechanics, on the spot, for those four different actions and describe them so he can make a meaningful tactical choice - which is going to take time, and certainly vary from DM to DM, and, as you point out, relies quite heavily on the referee's skill.  If the DM makes a bad call and trots out an unbalanced rule that rule might be abused - and of course the referee can always revise the rule, but that revision may itself generate friction between player and DM.

A game where more actions are codified doesn't preclude improvisation, but it does provide a more efficient and consistent set of options that don't gobble up as much game-time or generate conflicts.

I'm not bashing OD&D here, as much as it might seem that way: honestly, those who prefer OD&D can go for it, and more power to them.  But those who prefer the greater tactical specificity and detail of later editions aren't having badwrongfun, nor are they mistaken that newer editions are generally better at providing such detail than earlier ones, especially if their DM isn't great at these kind of snap-judgments (they still might be a great DM in other ways).  Again, this is not to say that this makes later editions intrinsically superior, but they are better at some things, and I think this is one of them.

Quote from: Steerpike;741407It's true that asking how the referee will interpret a given move or action is always an option, of course, but I still think that those looking for tactical granularity of a certain type might find the ad-hoc nature of OD&D frustrating.  Consider a situation where a Fighter is debating between four different actions, none of them covered specifically by the rules of OD&D.  Now, he could ask the DM to come up with mechanics, on the spot, for those four different actions and describe them so he can make a meaningful tactical choice - which is going to take time, and certainly vary from DM to DM, and, as you point out, relies quite heavily on the referee's skill.  If the DM makes a bad call and trots out an unbalanced rule that rule might be abused - and of course the referee can always revise the rule, but that revision may itself generate friction between player and DM.

What if the referee makes a GOOD call? What if the referee was a human being able to learn from practice to get better at the judgment calls he or she makes when refereeing the game?

What gets to me is that all these scenarios that are posited prior to making statements like 'this playstyle is frustrating, inconsistent and/or inefficient' are predicated on the notion that the DM fails at what he does. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that "most DMs suck" or anything even remotely close to this type of premise. What you've got is different types of people DMing, with different sets of skills and experiences, and in my honest opinion most DMs are decent to good at what they do.

Besides, it seems to me that trying to get clear cut answers on all sorts of mechanical aspects of a given set of choices is playing the rules, not the game. A fighter in a combat situation doesn't always know all the mathematical ins and outs of all the possible courses of actions that he could undertake - you can eyeball stuff like "this looks hard, easy, this does look potentially harder to pull off than this other thing, there might be a 1 in 3 chance to make it, etc" but beyond that you are in the situation, you're not analyzing probabilities with a tape and compass when you're into a combat situation.

At some point people need to be playing the game, not the rules. They need to see themselves in the situation and decide what they do on the spur of the moment. If some piece of information that the character would normally have seems missing, then you should feel free to ask a question. But the point of the game is to act in the situation as though you were there.

Quote from: Steerpike;741407A game where more actions are codified doesn't preclude improvisation, but it does provide a more efficient and consistent set of options that don't gobble up as much game-time or generate conflicts.

I disagree. I've seen much more back and forths occurring about the letter of the rules in any one situation in game, rather than the alternative where it's understood from the get-go that the DM is the referee, he makes a call, and we move on with the game. I also disagree that more or less options would automatically make the game more or less consistent. It depends on the nature of the rules, and their implementation in game play.

Quote from: Steerpike;741407I'm not bashing OD&D here, as much as it might seem that way: honestly, those who prefer OD&D can go for it, and more power to them.  But those who prefer the greater tactical specificity and detail of later editions aren't having badwrongfun, nor are they mistaken that newer editions are generally better at providing such detail than earlier ones, especially if their DM isn't great at these kind of snap-judgments (they still might be a great DM in other ways).  Again, this is not to say that this makes later editions intrinsically superior, but they are better at some things, and I think this is one of them.

I don't think people who are playing with later editions are having badwrongfun. I would strongly object to the characterization these people would be making of other play styles they would like less, however, calling them inconsistent or inefficient or whatever else, if that actually does not reflect the objective reality of these play styles in action (i.e. some DMs are great, some DMs are bad and unable to ever improve because of personality or hang-ups or whatnot, and most are somewhere in between, making mistakes from time to time, with the ability to improve over time).

Quote from: Old Geezer;741405You have GOT to come to GaryCon and play CHAINMAIL.

Will do.

Quote from: Old Geezer;741406That's part of it.

The other part is "great risk, great reward," which is a principle for financial investments and a lot of other stuff as well.

When I travel, I avoid chain restaurants and go to little local places.

I've had some pretty crappy meals, where McDonald's would have been tastier.

I've also had some truly astonishing food.

If I'm not willing to take the risk of poor food and eat always at McDonald's, I'm going to get consistent results, but I'll never get something truly brilliant.

A lot of people are very, very risk averse, to the point where it becomes ludicrous... they don't want to take ANY risk at ANY time.  When those people hit RPGs... or for that matter, wargames... the results tend to not be good.

You can't win a battle... or a wargame... without risking your troops.

True dat.

Quote from: Old Geezer;741403That is so fucking far from what actually happened that the light from what actually happened will not.

So what actually happened? Or do we have to wait for the book?

Quote from: Benoist;741409Besides, it seems to me that trying to get clear cut answers on all sorts of mechanical aspects of a given set of choices is playing the rules, not the game. A fighter in a combat situation doesn't always know all the mathematical ins and outs of all the possible courses of actions that he could undertake - you can eyeball stuff like "this looks hard, easy, this does look potentially harder to pull off than this other thing, there might be a 1 in 3 chance to make it, etc" but beyond that you are in the situation, you're not analyzing probabilities with a tape and compass when you're into a combat situation.

I think there are legitimate arguments for both sides of this, which makes it more a matter of taste.

It's true that a trained and experienced fighter will not be thinking mathematical assertions like "That guy is wearing chainmail so I have a 13 out of 20 chance to hit with my sword and an 11 out of 20 chance to hit with my bow." However, he will be drawing on a host of experience and knowledge for making his decision about whether to close and fight or shoot at a distance, for example. When I'm playing a game, my knowledge of the rules and/or rulings can substitute in part for knowledge of real-world fighting techniques.

So the trained fighter character chooses between tactical options based on his real fighting experience; but I the player choose between tactical options based on my knowledge of the game.

The same principle is true even in the case of a rulings-not-rules approach. A good GM gives consistent rulings. If I can predict his rulings, I have a better ability to pick the best tactical option. Rather than learning the written rules, I am learning how a GM thinks and improving my choices based on that.

Quote from: Benoist;741409What if the referee makes a GOOD call? What if the referee was a human being able to learn from practice to get better at the judgment calls he makes when refereeing the game? What gets to me is that all these scenarios that are posited prior to making statements like 'this playstyle is frustrating' are predicted on the notion that the DM fails. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that "most DMs suck" or anything even remotely close to this type of premise. What you've got is different types of people DMing, with different sets of skills and experiences, and in my honest opinion most DMs are decent to good at what they do.

First of all, making a good ruling isn't the whole picture. Besides making a good ruling, there is also the question of communicating what that ruling would be to the players. A given choice might realistically be the best tactical option, and I as GM can make a ruling that makes it so. However, the players might not choose that option not because they were dumb - but instead because I didn't successfully communicate that to them.

Personally, I don't feel that either most game designers or most GMs are all that good at what they do. I frequently see written game rules that are poor, and I frequently see rulings that are poor.

Quote from: Benoist;741393I don't see how DM rulings are by their very nature going to be inconsistent from game to game and mechanically unpredictable.

I read "game to game" to mean different campaigns, perhaps with different DMs.  I see the inconsistency as integral because each DM is going to be unique.  I don't see this as a bad thing though.  It just means I'm going to have a different experience with each DM.

I have a prescription to help cure people of some of their ills:

Play a OD&D/S&W game where the DM has all the character sheets behind the screen.  You can have some note paper where you can right down equipment and other things you think are important to you.  The DM will describe any damage you take or any other system stuff in real words.  You don't have to worry about anything but describing what you do in response to what the DM describes.  The DM will handle the entire system behind the screen, perhaps asking you to make die rolls or perhaps handling those as well.

Quote from: Steerpike;741407Consider a situation where a Fighter is debating between four different actions, none of them covered specifically by the rules of OD&D.

I would say most times it obvious what possible based on the tenor of the campaign. If the referee is presenting zany things then likely zany actions will have a shot at succeeding and carving a Z in somebody chest is par for the course.. If the referee is running his campaign like Game of Thrones then likely trying to carve a Z in the guy's chest is a waste of time at best, more likely leave you dangerously open.

Based on my experience most classic D&D referees would judge it in like of how realistically plausible the action sounds.

If you and I were fighting with swords, do you think it would be a good idea to try to carve a Z in my chest? Assuming that we were of comparable skill. Then how about if I was obviously a poor swordsman? Or a better one?

Mechanics are tools, the details to make a judgement are found in the circumstances. Even in GURPS, mechanics pale against the knowledge of your foe's capabilities. You could try to slash a Z only to the find that your opponents has a 18 skill to your 15.

There been several suggestions as to how to handle the slashing of the Z. While different they are not that difference and mainly focus on the fact that it is viewed as a skilled bit of swordplay and thus more difficult than the normal attack roll.

 

Quote from: Steerpike;741407A game where more actions are codified doesn't preclude improvisation, but it does provide a more efficient and consistent set of options that don't gobble up as much game-time or generate conflicts.

If the referee ruling generate conflicts then somebody is not doing their job. Either the referee is being inconsistent or the player being anal at not getting the exact result he hoped for.

Quote from: jhkim;741416The same principle is true even in the case of a rulings-not-rules approach. A good GM gives consistent rulings. If I can predict his rulings, I have a better ability to pick the best tactical option.

This is the key bit, here, really, and it's a matter of prioritization.

If your main priority is "do what my guy would do", then it's important that a GM give reasonable, consistent rulings.

If your main priority is "do what is the best tactical choice", then knowing and being able to analyze the available options is the important thing.

Two different play styles (and, really, it's a range) with different requirements.

For the Z example, over a one-minute combat round, if the character was wielding a suitable weapon, I'd let the player choose to do damage, or do no damage and force the opponent to make a morale check to surrender. A spot of duelist's repartee wouldn't go amiss, either.

If we're playing Dungeon World, then please Defy Danger with your Dex, with the danger being the dude you're in a sword fight with who presumably is not interested in your continuing good health.

Quote from: Benoist;741393I don't see how DM rulings are by their very nature going to be inconsistent from game to game and mechanically unpredictable.

Erm, because different GM's are different people with different experiences and takes on the rules and the situation, and with different groups and different plans. We all know this, GM'ing is an art form rather than a science. Of course everyone will do it differently.

art, of course, referring to a work of creative expression, rather than a study of rules and logic, and certainly not a "we are all artists here" situation.

QuoteIt seems to me that inconsistency and unpredictability are predicated on the DM sucking in the first place, which is not a given, whereas people new to DMing learn from their mistakes and become better with time. When in doubt, asking a question is always an option. This is a game where communication matters.

Everybody was a crap GM to start with. Everyone leaping to keyboards to refute me was too crap to know they were crap. But everybody is crap at something when they start doing it, so it's fine; congratulations to all of us on sticking with it and getting better.

You can cure being crap with experience, but the game designer should also try to help people get up to speed with how to run their game and have fun doing it; it's kinda their job. That doesn't mean "here are the rules for all of the combat maneuvers:", but some "here are some examples of how to judge situations in play:".

As a player, I have a vested interest in more GM's getting tuition on not being crap (Not least because I'd kinda like it, too). I want more GM's to run good games, because bad games are more likely to result in new players who don't stick with the game, and that means less people for me to play with.

(I'm not talking about the rules examples in most books either, which tend to be just straightforward and obvious; I'm talking about examples of the GM having to make a judgement call, and the thought processes that would go into it.)

Quote from: NathanIW;741417I read "game to game" to mean different campaigns, perhaps with different DMs.  I see the inconsistency as integral because each DM is going to be unique.  I don't see this as a bad thing though.  It just means I'm going to have a different experience with each DM.

Quote from: Ladybird;741425Erm, because different GM's are different people with different experiences and takes on the rules and the situation, and with different groups and different plans. We all know this, GM'ing is an art form rather than a science. Of course everyone will do it differently.

But this is a feature of role playing games to me, not a bug. The rules are there to provide the framework of the game, so that basically when you come to the table and the DM tells you "we're playing AD&D" you know more or less what to expect. But that does not preclude any discussion with the DM before the game ("are you using any house rules?" or "are you using the weapons versus armor table?"), and knowing where he or she is coming from. That doesn't preclude communicating during the game either, and asking questions when relevant, and learning to play with others as you go.

What you are calling "inconsistency" here seems to be a VERY loaded term to me. I would call this the inherent diversity, variety of role playing games, and these are good things to me, not bad ones. I'm cool if you tell me we're rolling individual initiative in your game. It's cool if you want to use weapon speeds or level drain does ability score damage or whatnot. Remain consistent and run the game with fairness at your own game table, and I'll be fine.

Quote from: Ladybird;741425Everybody was a crap GM to start with. Everyone leaping to keyboards to refute me was too crap to know they were crap. But everybody is crap at something when they start doing it, so it's fine; congratulations to all of us on sticking with it and getting better.

I disagree. I've known GMs, not just me, but many people besides me, who started GMing and ran decent games from the get-go. Your premise is, flat-out, a bullshit biased assertion, to me. It might be that we have different thresholds of what we would call "good" and "bad" GMing, but then again, that just confirms to me that this is a biased assertion to begin with.

Quote from: Ladybird;741425You can cure being crap with experience, but the game designer should also try to help people get up to speed with how to run their game and have fun doing it; it's kinda their job. That doesn't mean "here are the rules for all of the combat maneuvers:", but some "here are some examples of how to judge situations in play:".

Now putting aside whether or not people suck when they start running games, I do believe that in either case this is true. The games and modules and so on should provide means for people to run them effectively, and that means sometimes talking to the referee directly, giving examples, explaining what's what and why that is, and so on. I completely agree with this.

Quote from: Ladybird;741425As a player, I have a vested interest in more GM's getting tuition on not being crap (Not least because I'd kinda like it, too). I want more GM's to run good games, because bad games are more likely to result in new players who don't stick with the game, and that means less people for me to play with.

That's true as well. I for one don't believe in clutches. I don't believe in the rules doing the referee's job, nor in them "fixing" referees and their games in any way, shape, or form, for that matter. I do believe, however, that games can participate, along with trials and errors, experience, other GMs and so on, in teaching how to run a satisfying game for those involved.

Quote from: Ladybird;741425(I'm not talking about the rules examples in most books either, which tend to be just straightforward and obvious; I'm talking about examples of the GM having to make a judgement call, and the thought processes that would go into it.)

Got ya. I agree with this.

Quote from: Benoist;741428But this is a feature of role playing games to me, not a bug. The rules are there to provide the framework of the game, so that basically when you come to the table and the DM tells you "we're playing AD&D" you know more or less what to expect. But that does not preclude any discussion with the DM before the game ("are you using any house rules?" or "are you using the weapons versus armor table?"), and knowing where he or she is coming from. That doesn't preclude communicating during the game either, and asking questions when relevant, and learning to play with others as you go.

What you are calling "inconsistency" here seems to be a VERY loaded term to me. I would call this the inherent diversity, variety of role playing games, and these are good things to me, not bad ones. I'm cool if you tell me we're rolling individual initiative in your game. It's cool if you want to use weapon speeds or level drain does ability score damage or whatnot. Remain consistent and run the game with fairness at your own game table, and I'll be fine.

I don't consider inconsistencies to be an inherently bad thing, though. Inconsistency is the thing this hobby provides over playing Diablo. I do have an issue with arbitrariness, but we aren't discussing that tonight.

I fully agree on discussing what sort of game is happening at the table, though, rather than merely going by the book's titles. The SLA Industries technothriller and the media circus games that I'm in are both valid concepts for the game and the setting, but someone who was expecting one would not necessarily like the other.

QuoteI disagree. I've known GMs, not just me, but many people besides me, who started GMing and ran decent games from the get-go. Your premise is, flat-out, a bullshit biased assertion, to me. I might be just that we have different thresholds of what we would call "good" and "bad" GMing, but then again, that just confirms to me that this is a biased argument.

I don't believe anyone who claims they weren't crap at anything the first time they did it ("Good for a beginner", maybe, I could go with that); I'm certainly not claiming to have been anything other than crap the first time (iirc, I was running Paranoia). I don't consider that to be a moral failing or a criticism, though. It's people who are knowingly bad and refuse to learn or try to get better that I have an issue with; if your first time is crap, fine (And if I'm there, I will tell you why it was crap and how to do better, because I have a vested interest in more people being good at the things I like doing). If, say, your tenth time is crap, there's a problem, maybe it's not for you.

QuoteThat's true as well. I for one don't believe in clutches. I don't believe in the rules doing the referee's job. I do believe, however, that games can participate, along with trials and errors, experience, other GMs and so on, in teaching how to run a satisfying game for those involved.

IMO, rules should be like scaffolding; you can't build a building made of it, but you can't build a building without it, and after a while you won't need it. The more information that gets put out there in easy-to-find places, the better things get for all of us... and the easiest place to find it, is the core rulebook.

Quote from: Ladybird;741442I don't consider inconsistencies to be an inherently bad thing, though. Inconsistency is the thing this hobby provides over playing Diablo. I do have an issue with arbitrariness, but we aren't discussing that tonight.

I fully agree on discussing what sort of game is happening at the table, though, rather than merely going by the book's titles. The SLA Industries technothriller and the media circus games that I'm in are both valid concepts for the game and the setting, but someone who was expecting one would not necessarily like the other.

OK. So you're agreeing with me this is a plus, not a minus. That's essentially what I'm saying.

Quote from: Ladybird;741442I don't believe anyone who claims they weren't crap at anything the first time they did it ("Good for a beginner", maybe, I could go with that); I'm certainly not claiming to have been anything other than crap the first time (iirc, I was running Paranoia). I don't consider that to be a moral failing or a criticism, though. It's people who are knowingly bad and refuse to learn or try to get better that I have an issue with; if your first time is crap, fine (And if I'm there, I will tell you why it was crap and how to do better, because I have a vested interest in more people being good at the things I like doing). If, say, your tenth time is crap, there's a problem, maybe it's not for you.

It's fine, I realize you aren't saying this is special or some sort of moral failing, I just disagree with your premise. I actually wasn't the best newbie GM I can think of. I could instantly name a half dozen people who in my opinion did a good job running their first RPG sessions without thinking much about it. I don't think these people are rare, or special.

I just disagree with your take that people suck as soon as they try running a game for the first time, and to be honest, the notion that you could not believe anyone telling you otherwise is bizarre, to me. I can certainly believe that you've observed people sucking at running games for the first time.

Quote from: Ladybird;741442IMO, rules should be like scaffolding; you can't build a building made of it, but you can't build a building without it, and after a while you won't need it. The more information that gets put out there in easy-to-find places, the better things get for all of us... and the easiest place to find it, is the core rulebook.

I would make a big distinction between advice, game structures and the rationale behind them, and the rules of the game themselves. I think that the amount of rules needed in order to run a game will vary with people, and that more rules doesn't necessarily mean that things get easier to run, or that they help out more than some decent, practical, to-the-point advice would. So if I believe that the written material can help people run decent games and better their craft at running games, it's all about the type of information provided and how it's delivered, not about the sheer quantity, which can actually create more confusion than it's worth.

Quote from: Benoist;741428But this is a feature of role playing games to me, not a bug.

Yes.  In the quote of my earlier post I say as much.

QuoteWhat you are calling "inconsistency" here seems to be a VERY loaded term to me. I would call this the inherent diversity, variety of role playing games, and these are good things to me, not bad ones.

I get that.  I don't get the same negative reaction to "inconsistency" that you do.  I don't want the game experience from DM to DM to be consistent.  I want it to vary.

QuoteI've known GMs, not just me, but many people besides me, who started GMing and ran decent games from the get-go. Your premise is, flat-out, a bullshit biased assertion, to me. It might be that we have different thresholds of what we would call "good" and "bad" GMing, but then again, that just confirms to me that this is a biased assertion to begin with.

Good insight.  I think a lot of bad GMing comes from expanding the scope of the GM beyond the act of being a referee for a described dangerous situation or environment.  Once you start asking the GM to "tell stories" or "entertain the players" or "give the players what they want" and "figure out what type of player each person at the table is" and all sorts of other terrible GM advice people can take their eye off the core act of refereeing a game.

A lot of people would be helped by running an older module straight up.  Including the reading of box text.