TheRPGSite

Pretty much what the title says.

This is sort of a spin-off topic thread based in recent comments in the "RPG Pundit declares Victory" thread...

 To my way of thinking any good RPG has the GM as the final authority on everything - but also he or she is the de facto leader of the group and often the one that organizes and schedules game times.

I've tried over the years handing off the organizing & scheduling side of thimgs - but it always winds up coming back to me as the GM. Met a couple at the store where the GM's girlfriend (later fiancee) handled all the scheduling for a group.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Benoist;416213I don't see the GM as final authority and the communication aspects of RPGs as being opposites at all. In the sense that a GM who knows anything about his job will engage the players by asking for their feedback, and making them feel "at home", so to speak, all the while maintaining the simple fact that the buck stops with him. In other words, GM leadership is part and parcel of the social interactions around an RPG.

The only people to my knowledge who try to put these elements in opposition to each other are the ones who just can't accept they aren't calling the shots beyond their characters at the game table. You know: whiners. These guys should shut the fuck up and roll some dice. That, or they should run their own games.

Quote from: Peregrin;416220Mm, I can see the GM as a "leader" figure, in the sense that he sets the pace, (most of the time) the scene, and makes sure everything is running smoothly, but I've never really found using the role as an authority position as helpful with any of my games, as I usually look to the table for consensus, anyway.

I meant "leadership" as you discuss it in management. Which means that listening skills, being aware of what people need, motivating people, etc, all of these things are part of the GM's "leadership" role at a game table in my mind. I did not mean it as an exclusive Viking Hat GM style, though the Hat is definitely one of the tools in the GM's arsenal as well, no question about it.

Quote from: Peregrin;416220IMO, though, the whole "GM word is law -- no exceptions" is just as bad as "The GM is evil" -- just people on each side of a dysfunctional social arrangement.  I prefer the "Try to work it out as friends and mature human beings" to either Rule 0 or GM-less play.

After all, if I'm a fair and have good communication skills as a GM, I shouldn't need to have the final say to make things work.

These things are not contradictory, to me. You can have a leadership role, and be final arbiter, having the last word in conflicts arising at the game table, if any, while at the same time having good communication with the players, frequently exchanging feedback, and so on, so forth. All these things are part of what makes a good GM, in my mind. It's not "either/or," it's "and." You seek feedback, create a group dynamic that's profitable to the game as a whole, as well as their individual parts, but if you ever need to put your foot down, or define the big picture for the group, then the buck stops with you, GM. Basically.

This is how it's gone in every game i've ever played...

Prospective GM - Hey, i've had a cool idea for a game.

Us - Oh yeah, what's that then?

PGM - There's this ice-world where the the inhabitants have to deal with the environment, giants and trying to find a better place to live. Elves are out, dwarves are in and magic items are rare. The fight is the thing. I thought that Conan would be a cool fit. Here's the house rules i think would work.

Us - Cool! or Crap!

Once the game gets going, we abide by the GM's decisions. 'Cos i've yet to come across a PC killer GM that all these pansies who have devoted thousands of words in describing are scared of.

Quote from: One Horse Town;416234'Cos i've yet to come across a PC killer GM that all these pansies who have devoted thousands of words in describing are scared of.

I've met a few, but these are very few and far between, IME. One precise individual comes to my mind, as a matter of fact, and he definitely, unequivocally was a douchebag. I guess I'm not seeing the legions of Evil GMs™ people seem to have encountered in their pasts.

The leader  and organiser of the group thing doesn't necessarily follow. I've always played in groups in which most peope are GMs in their own right and we tend to take turns. So you can't really identify one leader figure. Also I often host games at my place even when I am not running the game, but that still means I do a lot of the organising.

As fo the final authority thing, sure. But how often to come to that? I'm not saying we don't get differences of opinion on rules or other stuff that happens in game, but I find one generally finds a some sort of consensus or compromise long before anyone needs to invoke a final authority.

Quote from: Soylent Green;416238As fo the final authority thing, sure. But how often to come to that? I'm not saying we don't get differences of opinion on rules or other stuff that happens in game, but I find one generally finds a some sort of consensus or compromise long before anyone needs to invoke a final authority.

Absolutely.

Quote from: Benoist;416227It's not "either/or," it's "and." You seek feedback, create a group dynamic that's profitable to the game as a whole, as well as their individual parts, but if you ever need to put your foot down, or define the big picture for the group, then the buck stops with you, GM. Basically.

Quotethough the Hat is definitely one of the tools in the GM's arsenal as well, no question about it.

Understood, but it's differences in habit, maybe, when it comes to how I get to the point where the players agree with me.  

I usually toss the buck on the table, ask what everyone thinks, address points of view and negotiate a compromise if it's dire, and then proceed with play, always making sure any debates don't go on for more than a few minutes.  More of a facilitator, of sorts.  Through doing that, I'm usually able to get to the point where the group trusts me so much, they'll usually agree to my initial judgment after a few sessions of play, anyway.

So it's not so much me seeing it as an and/or -- it's certainly possible to do all of those things and maintain your position as a referee, but I question the usefulness of the GM as a rules/game-authority from my own gaming experiences.  Maybe it's proved useful to other groups, and that's great -- whatever makes their game run the best.  But IME, I don't need it.

Quote from: Benoist;416237I guess I'm not seeing the legions of Evil GMs™ people seem to have encountered in their pasts.

Quite. I posit that those who exist won't magically become decent people if confronted with a ruleset that castrates the GM's role. Systems aren't the cause of problem GMs, problem people are.

The Viking Hat holds great power.

And with great power comes...lots of nitpicky bullshit.

Too many times I've seen the GM become the "Game Mommy" who not only prepares the adventure, but does the scheduling, the emailing, the shuffling of schedules, the snack organizing, etc.  

GM =/= Game Mommy

I've seen games where I would say that take-charge players did more leading than the GM did (though the GM sure did some).

I've seen GMs push players around is ways that were not-fun; and I've seen domineering players do it too.

I've also seen sessions fail, and become boring, precisely because the GM had absorbed all the "leadership momentum", and then....    stopped.  That one, I've seen most often from GMs that decided to let the players run the show for a bit, but didn't really tell them, or did it in a game where everyone was hot-keyed to look for and run with outside motivations handed to them (groups expecting a module, for example).

On leading the scheduling and such, I've seen a lot of variation; never really tried to sift it for patterns.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;416256I've also seen sessions fail, and become boring, precisely because the GM had absorbed all the "leadership momentum", and then....    stopped.

I did that once.  I'll never make that mistake again.

Er, no. The GM is never the final authority and only in some groups is there a leader or organizer.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;416268Er, no. The GM is never the final authority and only in some groups is there a leader or organizer.

Yeah?

 Well you're wrong.

In any good, playable RPG - the GM is the final authority and arbiter.


- Ed C.

Quote from: One Horse Town;416247Quite. I posit that those who exist won't magically become decent people if confronted with a ruleset that castrates the GM's role. Systems aren't the cause of problem GMs, problem people are.

I agree. Rules don't fix people. People fix themselves, or they don't.

I think play goes off much better if the GM if the final authority at the game table. I think this does need some kind of voluntary assent from the other players, though - I can't imagine a good game if the GM is pulling a Phil Spector and maintaining his authority through some kind of demented intimidation scheme.

Having spent most of my best gaming years in groups with rotating GMs, my own experience suggests to me that the GM need not be the group leader or organizer - often he is, because the two skill sets tend to overlap, but as often as not the "manager" for the session is one of the other players - often just the player who was originally the most psyched about the GM's campaign pitch.

I've known several good GMs who can run a session like clockwork but if the players won't get their shit together on their own for the session, they will just find something else to do that week.

I'v played in many groups where I was the GM and also the organizer. But the best groups (to me) are the long-running ones, that eventually become self-organizing to an extent.

Like, we always play at James' house on Thursday, and when a game ends, it's up for discussion what we'll play next, and who the GM will be. (Those games tend to have organizers too, but it's less obvious, and less work).

Quote from: One Horse Town;416234Once the game gets going, we abide by the GM's decisions. 'Cos i've yet to come across a PC killer GM that all these pansies who have devoted thousands of words in describing are scared of.

GM-less games are less weird and different than you might think, once you play a few. And GM games that share authority in other ways can also be enjoyable.

Also, to counter your Made-Up Internet Facts with real experience, I enjoy some GM-less games, but I'm usually a GM myself in most games I play. So my enjoyment of the GM-less stuff has nothing to do with some weird fear of GMs.

It's like, I mostly want cereal for breakfast. But sometimes, for fun, I like eggs. That's not because I hate cereal and I want to destroy it. I like cereal. But maybe one morning, eggs instead. You know?

NOTE: If this thread is not supposed to be about differing opinions on "GM as final authority", and is just supposed to be about the other thing (management vs leadership), that is cool. I won't rabble-rouse.

Quote from: BWA;416293[...]But the best groups (to me) are the long-running ones, that eventually become self-organizing to an extent.

Like, we always play at James' house on Thursday, and when a game ends, it's up for discussion what we'll play next, and who the GM will be.

This is my experience, too, although usually the "what'll we play next" discussion happens between sessions. Some GMs will gladly run more than once a week, some GMs less often, some GMs prefer to run for a while in a row with long breaks. Often I would see more than one campaign going on at a time, with sporadic one shots.

Quote from: Cole;416296This is my experience, too, although usually the "what'll we play next" discussion happens between sessions.

Right, same here.

I've heard of groups where everyone will bring new games or game ideas and have "pitch sessions" when a campaign ends, but I've never done that. It sounds cool, I just don't have a regular-enough group to spend a session on that.

Well, I have over thirty years of gaming experience and have walked out of only two games as a player.  In one the PCs were members of an elite mercenary group that governments hired to do things they did not dare have their names associated with (more because of the risk of failure than because they were hideously amoral); a sort of Mission Impossible group, where the rest of the players had the attitude that they never took any risks and the GM never forced us to.  The other was World of Synnabar.
I suppose on some level the power of ultimate arbiter must rest with the GM, but I have never had a problem with trying to build, if not consensus, overwhelming general agreement (including changing my mind as GM).  I like troupe play and my groups have been fairly good about dividing up preparation and hosting duties.  I never really think of my games as combat light, but we do a lot of other things which seem to take up more time.

Quote from: One Horse Town;416234Once the game gets going, we abide by the GM's decisions. 'Cos i've yet to come across a PC killer GM that all these pansies who have devoted thousands of words in describing are scared of.

I suppose they must exist but in my opinion it's just a matter of not playing with a GM who is an asshole. I suppose in junior high school when he's the only person in the 8th grade who owns the Monster Manual one might encounter this person but I think the Stockholm Syndrome GM is rare in the wild and is usually more of a bitter-non-gamer than a threat to the unwary player.

I'm our group's organizer, whether I am GMing the current game or not.

There is no reason why coordination of a group's activities must fall on the GM's shoulders, though that is probably the default assumption out there.

Quote from: Professort Zoot;416299*snip*
I suppose on some level the power of ultimate arbiter must rest with the GM, but I have never had a problem with trying to build, if not consensus, overwhelming general agreement (including changing my mind as GM).  I like troupe play and my groups have been fairly good about dividing up preparation and hosting duties.  I never really think of my games as combat light, but we do a lot of other things which seem to take up more time.

This sums it up nicely IME. And one may walk away as the last show of discontent.

Sure the "killer DM/myway-hiway" happens but it seems rare as those types would discourage people from coming back. In my 30 years exp. I have never seen a game run like this but the rumors persist...

If someone volunteers to be the org. that is cool as long as they don't feel trapped in the role.
I prefer to run games at the LFGS not only for the resources but to help them get some sales in support.
I would not invite some of the gamers I have met into my home.
I also encourage carpooling.

cool thread here...:)

I've only ever played with one GM who was a problem... more of a control freak/railroader than a 'killer'... and I solved that problem by leaving.
Otherwise I've never had a problem with 'what the GM says goes'... since most reasonable people are cooperative and want to get along... want the game to be fun... and don't want to force people into things they won't enjoy. It's more a matter of trust than subservience.
When I've been in games where players didn't have that trust things usually went all sorts of sideways until it was restored/they left/game ended.

Quote from: BWA;416295GM-less games are less weird and different than you might think, once you play a few. And GM games that share authority in other ways can also be enjoyable.

Yup. It is my experience GM-less or GM light can work suprisingly well and result in games with a high level of player participation and energy .

The issue is we have plenty of willing and eager GMs in our group who like GMing so going for one of these games is sort of like shooting ourselves in the foot.

A GM-less game isn't an RPG.

A GM-less game is like a car thats missing its engine thats pushed down an incline.  Sure it rolls for a little while, but the steering becomes non-existant and that final crash impact stop is a doozy.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;416377A GM-less game isn't an RPG.

A GM-less game is like a car thats missing its engine thats pushed down an incline.  Sure it rolls for a little while, but the steering becomes non-existant and that final crash impact stop is a doozy.


- Ed C.

Have you really tried gm-less games? No offence, but you don't seem like a guy who would go for this kinda game.

I've played in the gm-less games, and they worked fine, and you don't get to decide whether or not they were rpgs or engineless cars.

I've played them. This was my favorite one:

(http://www.coolstuffinc.com/images/Products/Misc%20Art/Atlas%20Games/ag_createyourownstory.jpg)

My ex-girlfriend loved it.

Quote from: Koltar;416377A GM-less game isn't an RPG.

A GM-less game is like a car thats missing its engine thats pushed down an incline.  Sure it rolls for a little while, but the steering becomes non-existant and that final crash impact stop is a doozy.


- Ed C.

Okay in fairness I've never played a GMless game that wasn't just a one shot so I can't say one way or the other whether after a while the steering goes and it would end in a crash.

I am not convinced that long term play is a necessary condition for a game to be a roleplaying game. I've played a fair few traditional one-shot games and I feel they have their place. Some games like Paranoia seem to be much better suited to one-shot playing.

Similarly, the presense of a GM is no guarantee any one campaign won't crash and burn.    

Finally, just wondering, how do you feel about traditional roleplaying game which get used for solo (thus GMless) play, most famously Tunnels & Trolls?

It's a complicated world, why get hung up on definitions?

We play a weekly game, so as others have said, it becomes self-organising after a while. We're all adults and manage to act like them - people are good generally at letting it be known when they have to miss a week.

There's me and one other guy who are the main GMs in the group and always have been, and yeah, what organising that does go on is done by us mainly. So things like making sure someone's getting a new campaign ready when one's about to end, and finding new players as people leave, that kind of thing.

In game, we're pretty traditional players. GM is final authority on the rules, narrates the results of actions after the dice are rolled, all that stuff. It's collaborative but there's a band leader.

Quote from: BWA;416295Also, to counter your Made-Up Internet Facts with real experience,

What made-up facts are those?

Depends on the DM and the individual players.

Back in the day, I've played in games where the players physically threatened and even physically assaulted the DM for making certain rulings they didn't like, regardless of whether the ruling was according to the rpg rulebooks.

One DM I knew of, even kept a hammer hidden in a bag (or a baseball bat nearby) to deal with players who get physically violent.  They've had to use the hammer or baseball bat more than once.

Quote from: ggroy;416399One DM I knew of, even kept a hammer hidden in a bag (or a baseball bat nearby) to deal with players who get physically violent.  They've had to use the hammer or baseball bat more than once.

I shake my head but love the sheer madness of this.

Fuck the GM, the baseball bat is the final authority!

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;416419I shake my head but love the sheer madness of this.

Fuck the GM, the baseball bat is the final authority!

The baseball bat case was in a some games which had two or three brothers that were frequently beating each other up outside of the game.  One brother was usually the DM.  When one of them didn't like a DM ruling, they would beat up their brother who was DM'ing.

Quote from: One Horse Town;416394What made-up facts are those?

Oh, you know, just the usual uninformed bullshit passed off as Something Factual. Like you saying that people write games with GM constraints because they're "scared" of heavy-authority GM games, or Koltar sharing his own dull, provincial preferences, but dressing them up like they were objective truths determined through scientific inquiry.

Quote from: ggroy;416399One DM I knew of, even kept a hammer hidden in a bag (or a baseball bat nearby) to deal with players who get physically violent.  They've had to use the hammer or baseball bat more than once.

It's weird that this game was functional enough to continue long enough for that to happen "more than once".

Quote from: BWA;416424It's weird that this game was functional enough to continue long enough for that to happen "more than once".

It can happen more than once, when two or three persons in the gaming group are brothers (siblings) who beat up on one another frequently.

Quote from: BWA;416424Oh, you know, just the usual uninformed bullshit passed off as Something Factual. Like you saying that people write games with GM constraints because they're "scared" of heavy-authority GM games,

Point out where i've said this is FACT.

If you're refering to this; "'Cos i've yet to come across PC killer DMs that all these pansies have devoted thousands of words in describing are scared of." Then that's personal experience - which you're basically saying is wrong because of your personal experience. The bit about writing thousands of words doesn't refer to games, but the countless essays, and theory that has basically arisen from this non-issue.

If you're refering to this; "Quite. i posit that those who exist won't magically become decent people if confronted with a ruleset that castrates the GMs power. Systems aren't the cause of problem GMs, problem people are." This is quite obviously an opinion. It's there in the third word.

Opinions are like arseholes, we all have one. It's just that those who like to think theirs are better often use rhetorical tricks to try to shut dissenting voices down. Like you've done here.

The GM is the final authority in the RPG. RPGs were set up to work that way. If you have a game where the GM is not the final authority, it is not an RPG.

There are GMs who are obviously better or worse at handling this final authority.

And yes, forgeites largely turned to GM-castration as a favored ideological position because of "fear" in the sense of bad experiences, particularly with the heavy-handed metaplot and "illusionism" stuff that happened in the White Wolf games.  Ironically, their answer to this was to make the Game Designer the final authority, even though that was what was really to blame for most of White Wolf's crapulent excesses: designers like Rein·Hagen encouraging GMs to be douches and obliging GMs to follow the company's Metaplot.

RPGPundit

Quote from: PaladinCA;416316I'm our group's organizer, whether I am GMing the current game or not.

There is no reason why coordination of a group's activities must fall on the GM's shoulders, though that is probably the default assumption out there.

I think there's actually a very good reason why the GM is the coordinator - a game session can still occur with a player or two missing.  It can't without a GM.  Thus, having the GM in charge of scheduling just makes sense.

There's also the "the players tend to be lazy" thing.  GMs have to put in a lot of effort to get things ready for a session.  Players tend to just show up.  This tends to mean that outside of the sessions, they don't tend to spend a lot of time thinking about them, which means they aren't going to be the best organizers.

Obviously, groups where GMs trade off a lot from session to session would have a different dynamic.  But IME, such groups are in the extreme minority.

BWA, if you put as much effort into actually playing a game as you have into pretension and condescension in this thread, you might just actually experience that thing which we poor unwashed masses call "fun".

Quote from: jgants;416451Obviously, groups where GMs trade off a lot from session to session would have a different dynamic.  But IME, such groups are in the extreme minority.

That may be why I coordinate all of the games. I ran the first game for my current group but the group has five out of six people that have GM experience.

When we voted for the second game, I just kept coordinating the games out of habit. I've been doing it ever since (over 3 years). We tend to collaborate on when to meet next so nothing is set in stone. This has advantages and disadvantages of course.

When it goes well, we get in two 6 hour sessions per month. When it goes poorly, we might miss a month of games (like last month).

Quote from: RPGPundit;416450The GM is the final authority in the RPG. RPGs were set up to work that way. If you have a game where the GM is not the final authority, it is not an RPG.

And where is this carved in stone? On the same tablet that tells, that you must use funny dice for it to be an rpg, and thereby making Amber an non-rpg?

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;416463And where is this carved in stone? On the same tablet that tells, that you must use funny dice for it to be an rpg, and thereby making Amber an non-rpg?

GM-less games are fine for one-shots.  Have you ever successfully campaigned with one?

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;416463And where is this carved in stone? On the same tablet that tells, that you must use funny dice for it to be an rpg, and thereby making Amber an non-rpg?

Well, the first RPG does use dice, so that must be how they're meant to be played...

Seanchai

I am totally imagine some sort of GM-less game using card mechanics to replicate random dungeon design or what not. Couldn't see why that woudln't be an RPG. I can also imagine a game of that type where the other players rate 'roleplaying' and award bonus stuff for good play etc so moving it out of HeroQuest territory.

After a few years on this site I am still kind of confused as to why people find it necessary to say 'this isn't an RPG becuase it has' :-

• No GM
• Limits to what the GM can do built into the rules
• No mechanical charcter development
• No dice
• A random plot builder
• Lets you play evil charcters
• Let's people spend acquired points to find blacksmiths, or clothes that fit or ...
• etc
• etc

First I would call bullshit because the actual action of play is the same. Second why would you bother to fracture an ever decreasing hobby by introducing arbitary limits as to what is allowed to be in in. Sure there are shit games, sure there are games that are juvinile and focus on something the designers what to be shocking like sex with monkeys, sure bunches of people like the Forge will come and go with views of some high level Theory, but all that is crap and no one cares. No one cares (well obviously some people here do but why?)

Is Victory Games 007 not an RPG because I can use a Hero point to find a signal flare in that locker? Is Amber not an RPG because there is no Randomness? Is Daredevils not an RPG because my character can make a Criminal Subculture roll to find someone in New York (who the GM never invented) that can forge a passport? Is my D&D game not an RPG because I'll allow a PC to 'grab a wine bottle from the table to use a weapon' when they haven't first asked me if there is a bottle on the table? No of course not they are all RPGs and I am sure that all these crappy forge games that I have only ever heard about on web forums play in much the same way as traveller or SW when it comes to what you actually do with your mates when you are playing.

As for GM authority... the players vest you with that authority and if you are shit they will take it away... such is it now and such has it always been.

(PS what is the deal with people not liking WW games? I ran a totally awesome Vampire game for a year and a half. I didn't worry about meta-plot, the PCs were basically 'superheroes with fangs', athough one of them was a bit Thespie and 2 of them were actually Knights Templars not Vampires at all but I digress... The game was fantastic! I can only assume its because the Larp stuff attracts a load of nobbish Goth kids who are incredibly annoying but so ... its not like I have to invite Fat guys who don't wash and eat a lot of pizza round to my house when we watch Star Trek ...)

Quote from: RPGPundit;416450The GM is the final authority in the RPG. RPGs were set up to work that way. If you have a game where the GM is not the final authority, it is not an RPG.

There are GMs who are obviously better or worse at handling this final authority.

And yes, forgeites largely turned to GM-castration as a favored ideological position because of "fear" in the sense of bad experiences, particularly with the heavy-handed metaplot and "illusionism" stuff that happened in the White Wolf games.  Ironically, their answer to this was to make the Game Designer the final authority, even though that was what was really to blame for most of White Wolf's crapulent excesses: designers like Rein·Hagen encouraging GMs to be douches and obliging GMs to follow the company's Metaplot.

RPGPundit

I don't personally see why there was anything wrong with their metaplot. Back when I worked in a game store, everyone that came in talking about their awesome WW games talked about them through the lens of the metaplot. They loved it because everyone kinda knew what their game was about and it was interesting to hear each others takes on it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;416234Once the game gets going, we abide by the GM's decisions. 'Cos i've yet to come across a PC killer GM that all these pansies who have devoted thousands of words in describing are scared of.

Your probably lucky, I have met a couple. In my experience they tend to be frustrated wargammers who have more luck getting an RPG group together than convincing people to invest 100 quid in metal soldiers.

Although to be fair, their by no means my least favourite type of GM as at least they abide by a framework. It's the buggers who change to rules on the fly so your character has to do what they want at all times that I avoid.

Quote from: jibbajibba;416480PS what is the deal with people not liking WW games? I ran a totally awesome Vampire game for a year and a half. I didn't worry about meta-plot, the PCs were basically 'superheroes with fangs', athough one of them was a bit Thespie and 2 of them were actually Knights Templars not Vampires at all but I digress... The game was fantastic! I can only assume its because the Larp stuff attracts a load of nobbish Goth kids who are incredibly annoying but so ... its not like I have to invite Fat guys who don't wash and eat a lot of pizza round to my house when we watch Star Trek ...

Don't tell the designers you ran it like that, they will have an emo meltdown. ;o)

Quote from: Cranewings;416481I don't personally see why there was anything wrong with their metaplot. Back when I worked in a game store, everyone that came in talking about their awesome WW games talked about them through the lens of the metaplot. They loved it because everyone kinda knew what their game was about and it was interesting to hear each others takes on it.

I think the major problem people ran into was the meta-plot really intruded. If you compare to Forgotten Realms which also has a strong fiction element, it often barely impacted on the game.

Rather than getting adventures with lovely lines like if you are a Nosferatu a Niktucu kills you at this point, or if you are a Ravnos or Sabbat Tremere your clan is wiped out at this point of if your a Tzimisci one of your disciplines kills you...

They basically kept reinventing the games on the fly, often with no warning. So eventually the number of people who where screwed over by the meta-plot outnumber those who weren't. And because the line was so meta-plot orientated, its stopped being able to support a good number of people who actually 'liked' the game. The classic one is always second edition Mage, which essentially wholly refocused the game on what many fans regarded as its worst aspect, leading to a mass migration away from the line.

Now this is not automatically a function of meta-plot, but because the same thing happened in Deadlands, 7th Sea and Legend of the Five Rings at the same time, it got all Meta-plots a very bad name (to the point where the new edition of World of Darkness, Legend of the Five Rings and Deadlands are being essentially advertised on forums as Meta-plot free).

Quote from: CRKrueger;416465GM-less games are fine for one-shots.  Have you ever successfully campaigned with one?

Nah, not longer campaigns and I agree that gm-less games works best for one-shots. But I still consider it roleplaying :)

Quote from: jadrax;416486I think the major problem people ran into was the meta-plot really intruded. If you compare to Forgotten Realms which also has a strong fiction element, it often barely impacted on the game.

Rather than getting adventures with lovely lines like if you are a Nosferatu a Niktucu kills you at this point, or if you are a Ravnos or Sabbat Tremere your clan is wiped out at this point of if your a Tzimisci one of your disciplines kills you...

They basically kept reinventing the games on the fly, often with no warning. So eventually the number of people who where screwed over by the meta-plot outnumber those who weren't. And because the line was so meta-plot orientated, its stopped being able to support a good number of people who actually 'liked' the game. The classic one is always second edition Mage, which essentially wholly refocused the game on what many fans regarded as its worst aspect, leading to a mass migration away from the line.

Now this is not automatically a function of meta-plot, but because the same thing happened in Deadlands, 7th Sea and Legend of the Five Rings at the same time, it got all Meta-plots a very bad name (to the point where the new edition of World of Darkness, Legend of the Five Rings and Deadlands are being essentially advertised on forums as Meta-plot free).

I guess I can see that. We gamed the hell out of the L5R meta plot, but once it got to a certain point, around Oblivian's Gate, we started ignoring it and just reworking the original set up more and more. It gets tiring keeping track of so many NPCs, especially when it is only interesting when the PCs are 4th or 5th rank.

Quote from: Benoist;416237I've met a few, but these are very few and far between, IME. One precise individual comes to my mind, as a matter of fact, and he definitely, unequivocally was a douchebag. I guess I'm not seeing the legions of Evil GMs™ people seem to have encountered in their pasts.

Maybe it's just like one guy who lives a very migratory lifestyle due to getting chased out of every town he visits by angry gamers. ; p

Quote from: Shazbot79;416496Maybe it's just like one guy who lives a very migratory lifestyle due to getting chased out of every town he visits by angry gamers. ; p

LOL Could be!

Quote from: CRKrueger;416465GM-less games are fine for one-shots.  Have you ever successfully campaigned with one?

I don't quite get this one. I think you're probably correct, and most GM-less games do work better as one-shots. That's my experience, but I have only played a handful of them. Are you saying that RPGs are fake RPGs unless they are suitable for campaign play? Or are you just making an observation?

Quote from: jibbajibba;416480I am totally imagine some sort of GM-less game using card mechanics to replicate random dungeon design or what not. Couldn't see why that woudln't be an RPG.

The GM-less games I've played don't work that way. Rather, authority is distributed around the table, usually with mechanics to back it up. For example, Fiasco is a great game, GM-less, and you will not find a game whre your character gets more thoroughly hosed. Guaranteed!

Not to say your suggestion wouldn't work. Although I played D&D 4E once with no GM, and it was not super fun.

Quote from: jibbajibba;416480First I would call bullshit because the actual action of play is the same. Second why would you bother to fracture an ever decreasing hobby by introducing arbitary limits as to what is allowed to be in in.

I second your call of bullshit. Its totally irrational. Although the second part doesn't bother me so much. It's really just the bullshit thing.

Quote from: jeff37923;416454BWA, if you put as much effort into actually playing a game as you have into pretension and condescension in this thread, you might just actually experience that thing which we poor unwashed masses call "fun".

Jeff, you seem to have mistaken me for an imaginary dude who is telling you what to do.

On a less fight-y topic, the thing about the GM being the indispensible player definitely holds true for most games. So it makes some sense for them to be the organizer/host.

Plus, I'm guessing that 80% of people who post on gaming forums are GMs. So the audience is self-selecting.

Quote from: Koltar;416377A GM-less game isn't an RPG.

*snip*- Ed C.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416450The GM is the final authority in the RPG. RPGs were set up to work that way. If you have a game where the GM is not the final authority, it is not an RPG.

*snip*.

*snip*  Ironically, their answer to this was to make the Game Designer the final authority, *snip*RPGPundit

:huhsign:
wow...just wow...so what about all those games w/fate points etc...not RPG because the player gets to fudge some? And I would love to see some quotes to back up your "Game Designer the final authority" rhetoric. Sounds like you guys are trying to do the same with all this "not an RPG" pontificating. Not even an "IMO"...no one expects the spanish inquisition...

:)

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;416463And where is this carved in stone? On the same tablet that tells, that you must use funny dice for it to be an rpg, and thereby making Amber an non-rpg?

Dice are no more essential to the basic definition of the RPG than memorized spells are, or hex maps. But the basic structure of GM/Player interaction is a fundamental definition.

RPGPundit

Quote from: skofflox;416518:huhsign:
wow...just wow...so what about all those games w/fate points etc...not RPG because the player gets to fudge some?

:)

It depends. If the "fate points etc." you're talking about are actually a mechanic that emulates things like resources available or exceptional effort on the part of the player character, there is nothing wrong with them.
On the other hand, if they are meant to allow the player to alter the fundamental reality of the setting without justification on the part of the character's actual abilities, then there's a serious problem.

So, "points" that let you have a +2 to your roll or remove a level of damage are in no way outside of the regularity of RPGs.
"Points" that let you suddenly decide that there's a missle launcher hidden inside a car, or that the king wants to make you a duke instead of execute you, when neither of these things are within any power of your PC to do it, but are based exclusively on the PLAYER'S whim, are clearly irregular from the perspective of RPGs.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;416522Dice are no more essential to the basic definition of the RPG than memorized spells are, or hex maps.

That's bull and we all know it. Your assertion was that RPGs require GMs because that's the model or paradigm Gygax created. We all know his model included dice, a form of randomness inherent in the interplay between GM and players, too.

I understand why you don't like your petard, but now you gotta hang by it regardless...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;416527That's bull and we all know it. Your assertion was that RPGs require GMs because that's the model or paradigm Gygax created. We all know his model included dice, a form of randomness inherent in the interplay between GM and players, too.

Hey, good one! Why is one Gygaxian preference considered merely a common tool, but another Gygaxian preference considered holy writ?

I assume we will NOT hear a rational explanation from Pundit. Just flat statements uncorroborated by anything at all.

"And the Lord came unto them, and saw that they were playing GM-less. And lo he was sorely wroth, and smote them, and made the waters to rise over their cities and cover the earth. And lo the Lord sayeth unto them 'For whosoever challenges the distribution of authority in role-playing games is wicked in my sight, and shall be as ashes unto all eternity." (Ephesisans, 5:27)

Crusaders will crusade.

I'm not a big fan of role playing games that do not use dice at all, personally.
One reason I never could really get into Amber, despite the all the raves surrounding its existence.

Quote from: BWA;416530Hey, good one! Why is one Gygaxian preference considered merely a common tool, but another Gygaxian preference considered holy writ?

I assume we will NOT hear a rational explanation from Pundit. Just flat statements uncorroborated by anything at all.

"And the Lord came unto them, and saw that they were playing GM-less. And lo he was sorely wroth, and smote them, and made the waters to rise over their cities and cover the earth. And lo the Lord sayeth unto them 'For whosoever challenges the distribution of authority in role-playing games is wicked in my sight, and shall be as ashes unto all eternity." (Ephesisans, 5:27)

Just why the fuck are you here exactly?

Nonsense. The structure of RPGs is not like that because it was the "holy word of gygax", again, if that was the case we'd all still be playing oD&D.
The structure of RPGs was the basic structure inherent in the first RPGs, and the issue is "can you take x away from that without changing the fundamental way RPGs function in terms of creating emulation and immersion"?
You can take away memorized spells, hex maps, dungeons, or even dice without fundamentally changing what RPGs do; you can NOT take away GMs, or the division of GM and Player roles, without fundamentally changing what RPGs do.

RPGpundit

Quote from: One Horse Town;416537Just why the fuck are you here exactly?

Starting to sound like just for shits and giggles.

Quote from: Benoist;416534I'm not a big fan of role playing games that do not use dice at all, personally.

I like dice. I accept that if your game calls for a randomizing element, cards or coins would work just as well. But I wouldn't be as happy about it.

Although the more games I play with only d6s, the more I like that. It feels more elegant.

Quote from: One Horse Town;416537Just why the fuck are you here exactly?

Because talking and/or arguing about RPGs on the internet is fun? And RPGnet is too exhausting? Also, not everyone here gets their knickers in a wad when you disagree with them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416548Starting to sound like just for shits and giggles.

Is there a another reason to post on a message forum?

Quote from: BWA;416549Because talking and/or arguing about RPGs on the internet is fun? And RPGnet is too exhausting? Also, not everyone here gets their knickers in a wad when you disagree with them.

I notice when i called you on your bullshit upthread, you conveniently ignored it and moved on to other targets.

Elliot had you pegged ages ago and Krueger speaks truth. Shits and giggles it is then.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416538The structure of RPGs was the basic structure inherent in the first RPGs...

Right. Page 9 of the AD&D DMG: "As the DM, the tools of your trade are dice..." We can find earlier or more quotes if you like, but that structure clearly included using dice.

So pick - which do you love more, your conceptions about what makes an RPG an RPG or Amber?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;416552Right. Page 9 of the AD&D DMG: "As the DM, the tools of your trade are dice..." We can find earlier or more quotes if you like, but that structure clearly included using dice.

So pick - which do you love more, your conceptions about what makes an RPG an RPG or Amber?

Seanchai

I know you're pissed at Pundit for the banning thing, but there's better stuff to try and nail him on then this stupid crap.  You trying to get banned again via stalking to prove your point?  :D

Quote from: One Horse Town;416551Elliot had you pegged ages ago and Krueger speaks truth. Shits and giggles it is then.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416556I know you're pissed at Pundit for the banning thing, but there's better stuff to try and nail him on then this stupid crap.  You trying to get banned again via stalking to prove your point?

I thought this was the RPG forum where people took positions, made strong statements and then duked it out. "Speak your mind here without fear!"

So what's with all the fretting and talk of banning? Has RPGsite lost its mettle?

Take a cue from Pundit. When he doesn't agree with you, he calls you a traitor and a hater-of-fun and spouts some crazy paranoid bullshit. He doesn't fuss about how you shouldn't be here if you don't like the same games as him. He goes big.

Quote from: BWA;416562I thought this was the RPG forum where people took positions, made strong statements and then duked it out. "Speak your mind here without fear!"

So what's with all the fretting and talk of banning? Has RPGsite lost its mettle?

Take a cue from Pundit. When he doesn't agree with you, he calls you a traitor and a hater-of-fun and spouts some crazy paranoid bullshit. He doesn't fuss about how you shouldn't be here if you don't like the same games as him. He goes big.

What strong statements?  Pundit is claiming the GM/player relationship is fundamental to the emulation of a world, which allows setting and character immersion to take place.  The argument to that is...
Pundit likes Amber (which does have a GM/player relationship)
Amber uses cards not dice
D&D used dice
Therefore if Amber is an RPG, then so must be games without the GM/player relationship.

Ummm no.  Seanchai is arguing for the sake of arguing, because him and Pundit aren't playing nice right now, as are you when you dodge the fundamental points or arguments and make strawmen based on false analogies.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416564Pundit is claiming the GM/player relationship is fundamental to the emulation of a world, which allows setting and character immersion to take place.  The argument to that is...

Okay. There we go. Something to talk about.

That's a great summary of that particular school of thought. Way more coherent than Pundit's dictatorial blithering too.

Two assumptions in your statement I'd like to hear more about:

1. Why is that relationship fundamental? What does the GM provide that cannot be provided by another player, in a game with a different distribution of authority?
 
2. If a character is the primary tool with which an RPG player engages the game and the fictional world (which I'll certainly accept), why is immersion into that character's mindset the ONLY appropriate way to play?

I'm not being bitchy. I want to hear your answers. I freely admit that I don't have any great truths I'm attached to, I just know my own gaming experiences.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416556I know you're pissed at Pundit for the banning thing, but there's better stuff to try and nail him on then this stupid crap.

No, actually, this is pretty good crap. I think the number of folks who will agree that dice aren't part of the fundamental structure of the first RPGs is going to be shockingly low.

The idea of GM as ultimate authority is intrinsic to RPGs, according to Pundit, because that's the paradigm the first RPGs set up. Fine. But when push comes to shove, does he really believe that?

Seanchai

Quote from: BWA;416562I thought this was the RPG forum where people took positions, made strong statements and then duked it out. "Speak your mind here without fear!"

So what's with all the fretting and talk of banning? Has RPGsite lost its mettle?

Take a cue from Pundit. When he doesn't agree with you, he calls you a traitor and a hater-of-fun and spouts some crazy paranoid bullshit. He doesn't fuss about how you shouldn't be here if you don't like the same games as him. He goes big.

"I notice when i called you on your bullshit upthread, you conveniently ignored it and moved on to other targets."

Well?

Quote from: CRKrueger;416564Amber uses cards not dice

No, actually it doesn't. It doesn't have a randomizer at all.

Seanchai

Yeah, Amber doesn't use any randomizer at all now, does it?

Quote from: CRKrueger;416564*snip*
Amber uses cards not dice
*snip*.

:huhsign:
no cards in Amber...

to say that a GM is needed to aid in emulation seems strange...why cant MATURE players riff off each other and the initial set-up of the game using source materials for inspiration/limits?
Lets break it down...RPG?
Role: A fictional character.Allows one to interact within a given setting.
Playing: The act of doing...participation in an activity.
Game: codified process for fun. Sometimes having distinct winner/loser paradigms.
so why all this nonsense about GM/Player dichotimy,just because the first iteration of the field had it?
The term RPG seems very nebulous IMO.
Is this good? opinions vary, but to say a form of the hobby is something entirely diff. well...By that logic a diesel isn't a car then...
same results diff. fuel, thats all man.
But I do think the "make" (trad./newschool/story) of the game should be conveyed when talking about them!

Most GM-less (Forgey?) games have strict rules to limit the possibility of imature players derailing the genre/setting chosen.Depends on what sort of game the group wants and agrees to. Sometimes over the top stuff is funny and fitting.

I am wondering if Pundit and others have actualy read/played many well run games like this...:idunno:

Quote from: RPGPundit;416524It depends. If the "fate points etc." you're talking about are actually a mechanic that emulates things like resources available or exceptional effort on the part of the player character, there is nothing wrong with them.
On the other hand, if they are meant to allow the player to alter the fundamental reality of the setting without justification on the part of the character's actual abilities, then there's a serious problem.

So, "points" that let you have a +2 to your roll or remove a level of damage are in no way outside of the regularity of RPGs.
"Points" that let you suddenly decide that there's a missle launcher hidden inside a car, or that the king wants to make you a duke instead of execute you, when neither of these things are within any power of your PC to do it, but are based exclusively on the PLAYER'S whim, are clearly irregular from the perspective of RPGs.

RPGPundit

See I have a problem with that. I played the shit out of 007 from '84 through to '87. So this is long before the forge or narritavism or all that bollocks. Hero Points do exactly that they let you find a rocket launcher in the back of a car or a flare pistol or whatever. The GM decides how many points based on the likelihood of it happening. Is that not an RPG?
In my Amber games I allow PCs to create NPCs at the character generation phase, and I am not talking about using in game powers later on to find NPCs of a certain type, I let the PC spend a point to have an ally in Amber and to create that NPC. That is pretty much per the rule book and its certainly a fair interpretation of the RAW. Does that stop Amber being an RPG, no of course not.

Quote from: jibbajibba;416583Hero Points do exactly that they let you find a rocket launcher in the back of a car or a flare pistol or whatever. The GM decides how many points based on the likelihood of it happening. Is that not an RPG?

Yes, but it's an RPG that's trying to immerse into a James Bond movie, not a "World in Motion".

Quote from: Seanchai;416568No, actually, this is pretty good crap. I think the number of folks who will agree that dice aren't part of the fundamental structure of the first RPGs is going to be shockingly low.

The idea of GM as ultimate authority is intrinsic to RPGs, according to Pundit, because that's the paradigm the first RPGs set up. Fine. But when push comes to shove, does he really believe that?

Seanchai

He doesn't believe that the DM/player relationship defines RPGsbecause Gygax did it, he believes that RPings started with the DM/player relationship because that's the best way to achieve the emulation of a world and the immersion that comes from it.

You're putting the cart before the horse semantically because you're still grinding the axe on Pundit.  As I said, there's plenty of real crap to get him on, not this stupid sophistry for the sake of pissing someone off.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416602Yes, but it's an RPG that's trying to immerse into a James Bond movie, not a "World in Motion".

So it's not an RPG? And it seems to be a world in which there is a requirement for internal consistency within the relm of the genre itself.

Quote from: BWA;416566Why is that relationship fundamental? What does the GM provide that cannot be provided by another player, in a game with a different distribution of authority?

Setting consistency and coherency.   In a traditional immersive rpg, the point of the ruleset is to be the "physics engine" of a world.  A world that is, within it's own internal structure, realistic.  That reality may include magic or it may include plasma rifles, but Lord of the Rings doesn't have plasma rifles and Traveller doesn't have demons and devils.

When a single person has the ultimate authority over a world, it is consistent.  An NPC that reacts one way one session will act the same way the next.  When you have shared authority mechanics, and players can "edit" the world, then the setting is not internally consistent by definition because we all look at a RPG setting and have different opinions as to how exactly things work.

Games with rules that allow for shared narration or authority are not primarily concerned with setting emulation, they are primarily concerned with story creation or with genre emulation, which is something else entirely.
 

Quote from: BWA;4165662. If a character is the primary tool with which an RPG player engages the game and the fictional world (which I'll certainly accept), why is immersion into that character's mindset the ONLY appropriate way to play?

Strawman.  I'm not saying that's the only way to play.  You could roll randomly every decision your character makes, then have fun all night making that into a story if you wanted to.  Add in alcohol and fun will be had by all...but that isn't immersive roleplaying.

How can I get from my home to the grocery store?  Well I can walk, run, drive, or ride.  All are viable ways for getting from Point A to Point B, however if I am Walking, I am not Running.  If I am riding my bike, I am, by definition, not driving my car.

If you are playing a character for the purposes of doing something other then immersing into that character's mindset, then you're not role-playing from an in-character point-of-view.  Some people call that not role-playing at all.  I choose to call it a different form of roleplaying.

Quote from: jibbajibba;416605So it's not an RPG? And it seems to be a world in which there is a requirement for internal consistency within the relm of the genre itself.

I'm not sure why this topic seems to turn everyone into a Strawman-making machine.  What I said was

Yes, but it's an RPG that's trying to immerse into a James Bond movie, not a "World in Motion".

Genre emulation is not the same thing as setting emulation.  007 would suck as a game if it didn't emulate the genre of James Bond movies very well.  However, it is lousy at emulating our world at the same time period using spies when "James Bond Rules" don't apply.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416616Genre emulation is not the same thing as setting emulation.

Ohh. I like that.

Quote from: jibbajibba;416583See I have a problem with that. I played the shit out of 007 from '84 through to '87. So this is long before the forge or narritavism or all that bollocks. Hero Points do exactly that they let you find a rocket launcher in the back of a car or a flare pistol or whatever. The GM decides how many points based on the likelihood of it happening. Is that not an RPG?
In my Amber games I allow PCs to create NPCs at the character generation phase, and I am not talking about using in game powers later on to find NPCs of a certain type, I let the PC spend a point to have an ally in Amber and to create that NPC. That is pretty much per the rule book and its certainly a fair interpretation of the RAW. Does that stop Amber being an RPG, no of course not.

Usually even writing a background for your character means the player is creating NPCs. Is this really a problem? You can't create a character 'in character' since they don't exist yet, so it can't interfere with immersion.

Quote from: Koltar;416271Yeah?

 Well you're wrong.

In any good, playable RPG - the GM is the final authority and arbiter.


- Ed C.

Oh yes, I am wrong because you say so. Nice try, Koltar. Maybe next time.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;416670Oh yes, I am wrong because you say so. Nice try, Koltar. Maybe next time.

Why thank you .

 This must be a hell of a "try" because I seem to have at least ten or more people backing me up on this one.

And no you're not wrong because " I " say so....you're wrong because of all the evidence in all the groups that have played RPGs over the years proove you to be wrong.

There's doesn't have to be a next time - we got this thread right here and and nice sky blue & chocolate colored forum.


- Ed C.

(Someone pass the snacks? Who's making popcorn?)

Quote from: Koltar;416671This must be a hell of "try" because I seem to have at least ten or more people backing me up on this one.

And no you're not wrong because " I " say so....you're wrong because of all the evidence in all the groups that have played RPGs over the years proove you to be wrong.
[/SIZE]

and a lot of people disagreeing with you, saying that they got a different than your "all the groups that have played RPGs over the years" and therefore being branded straw men :)

Look, right now I am writing a Star Wars scenario for a convention, it’s in three part.

In the first part, the four players get their pregenerated characters, all rebels serving as a lawmen shortly after the Battle of Endor. In this part, they get go search for some missing droids (yes...). It’s a totally normal rpg, where the GM guides them through, tells them what they encounter and takes care of the npc’s. The plot is also laid out, so the scenario text says, where the droids are and who stole them. The GM is the final authority.

In the second part, our four rebels are called out to a case of a stolen light saber. In this part, the players split up in two or three groups, and go out to investigate and interrogate suspects and witnesses. The twist here is, that the npc’s aren’t controlled by the GM, but are in the hands of the players not active in the scene. The npcs being nothing more than a mugshot and a name/title before they get in the hands of the players (Dimar, a rodian fence for example). So if player A & B go and talk to a couple of smugglers, the two scoundrels are played by player C & D. They are out of the GMs control. The GM cannot control what the information the smuggler give the two player characters and has no say in where and what direction the two npcs sends the players and the scenario. In this part there is no defined bad guy – I don’t write in the scenario text, that Robert the Huth is the culprit. The culprit is whoever the players end up deciding is culprit, based on the roleplaying and investigation they do. The GMs role here is only moderation, to keep the flow of the scenario going, maybe cutting some scenes if the drag on or goes nowhere, but that’s it. Not a lot of final authority.

In the third part, there’s a murder on the planet and one of the characters is involved. Neither of those two things are plottet out or defined in the text and the GM has no control over it. Actually before this part starts, the GM must leave the room, and let the players plot out who gets killed (using the npc's from the second part), who’s involved and the stand of the other characters in the case. The GM then returns, and in the role of a New Republic investigator, he has to try and piece the puzzle together, by interviewing/interrogating (roleplaying) the characters, while the players gets to obstruct or help the course of justice, try to frame someone/each other or take care of npcs, like in the second part. The scenario ends, when the GM decides to make an arrest, based on his/her investigation. No authority for the GM.

I consider all these three parts roleplaying. People will be in character, there’s plenty of room for immersive play, there's a (skeleton) plot but in two out of three parts, the GM will have little or no authority over the scenario. Would you describe  my scenario as anything other than a roleplaying game?

Quote from: CRKrueger;416616I'm not sure why this topic seems to turn everyone into a Strawman-making machine.  What I said was

Yes, but it's an RPG that's trying to immerse into a James Bond movie, not a "World in Motion".

Genre emulation is not the same thing as setting emulation.  007 would suck as a game if it didn't emulate the genre of James Bond movies very well.  However, it is lousy at emulating our world at the same time period using spies when "James Bond Rules" don't apply.

Calm down tiger :)

I was directing this as Pundit since his claim seems to be that games where PCs can make changes to the world outside the abilities of their characters is not an RPG, or at least have issues being called RPGs.

And Genre and setting are exactly the same thing. Now I can agree that genre and Realism are not the same thing.

If your claim is merely that James bond is not a realistic RPG then we have no issue at all, but I have used the James bond rules to play a Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy game and all I had to change was the tone of the NPCs, the gadgets and the mood lighting, I never touched the rules and never had to modify Hero Points at all.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;416663Usually even writing a background for your character means the player is creating NPCs. Is this really a problem? You can't create a character 'in character' since they don't exist yet, so it can't interfere with immersion.

For me no not at all.
However, I have been bought to task by Pundit before for saying that 'Player: I pick up a wine bottle from the table to use as a weapon.' is the same as, 'Player: Is there a wine bottle on the table I can use as a weapon. DM: Yes. Player:Okay I pick it up' . That seems a lot less impactful that paying a point in Amber to have a contact who runs a tavern on the Amber docks that is a front for a smuggling ring.

If you take the FGU games (Like Daredevil for instance) they have a set of skills called Subcultures. These subcultures are skills that let you find contacts, get stuff done in certain areas. A player can legitimately roll under his Law Enforcement subculture to know a guy at the local station who worked on the Fibbonaci case back in '24. Now the GM can create that NPC who may or may not have existed in his original plot or they can delegate that task to the Player. It doesn't stop it being an RPG and it doesn't break immersion. In fact you could argue that rules like these that flesh out the PCs relationships in the world help to make the world real and give the PCs in investment in it.

I use these type of things all the time Riff on a PC idea turn a dice roll into a fully fleshed NPC, reincorporate the NPC back into the game spin out a plot line from that. I would say I am still the final arbitrator but that just is my taste. If I wasn't and I allowed the PCs to do more and spin out more stuff then that wouldn't stop it being an RPG it just changes some of the dynamics.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416612When a single person has the ultimate authority over a world, it is consistent.  An NPC that reacts one way one session will act the same way the next.  When you have shared authority mechanics, and players can "edit" the world, then the setting is not internally consistent by definition because we all look at a RPG setting and have different opinions as to how exactly things work.

I hear what you're saying, I just don't understand why this can ONLY be achieved with a traditional GM.

An example: The Shab al-hiri Roach (a game on Pundit's "most-reviled" list) is a GM-less game. In the game there are handful of NPCs that keep re-appearing from scene to scene. Any player whose character is not in a given scene can be assigned one of these NPCs to play by the player "in charge" of that scene.

So what happens is that a single NPC will be played by multiple players as the game goes on. Per your theory, this might result in an NPC who was inconsistent in manner and agenda, which would be lame.

In practice, this doesn't happen. If I'm playing one of the NPCs, I have to pick up on what the last player did for him - did he speak with an accent, was he deranged, did he have a burning hatred for one of the PCs? It's a creative constraint, which helps make things entertaining, And, in turn, I can add aspects to his personality that the next player will have to run with.

However, I see that you are using the term "immersive role-playing", so, in effect, you are discussing a particular style of role-playing. I got no beef with that.

Quote from: jibbajibba;416686I use these type of things all the time Riff on a PC idea turn a dice roll into a fully fleshed NPC, reincorporate the NPC back into the game spin out a plot line from that. I would say I am still the final arbitrator but that just is my taste. If I wasn't and I allowed the PCs to do more and spin out more stuff then that wouldn't stop it being an RPG it just changes some of the dynamics.

I can't possibly see how any rational person would disagree with this. Although I fully expect someone to.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416604He doesn't believe that the DM/player relationship defines RPGsbecause Gygax did it, he believes that RPings started with the DM/player relationship because that's the best way to achieve the emulation of a world and the immersion that comes from it.

No. "The structure of RPGs was the basic structure inherent in the first RPGs..." and "The GM is the final authority in the RPG. RPGs were set up to work that way."

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;416728No. "The structure of RPGs was the basic structure inherent in the first RPGs..." and "The GM is the final authority in the RPG. RPGs were set up to work that way."

Seanchai

Right, they were set up that way, note however, that fact has nothing to do with what I said as to WHY Pundit thinks that is the best way to go.

Quote from: BWA;416700The Shab al-hiri Roach

Quote from: Bully Pulpit Games WebsiteA fast paced and hilarious game, The Shab-al-Hiri Roach requires no Game Master and can be played in a single evening. If you enjoy crazed one-upmanship, furious stake-setting, and chanting gutteral commands in Sumerian, The Roach would like to have a word with you.

The Shab-al-Hiri Roach is a dark comedy of manners, lampooning academia and asking players to answer a difficult question – are you willing to swallow a soul-eating telepathic insect bent on destroying human civilization?

No?

Even if it will get you tenure?

At what point in this game exactly are you playing the role of a character and not concerning yourself mainly with the metagames of 1.)oneupmanship, 2.)comedy, 3.)satirizing academia.

I haven't played it, so am asking a question.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416736At what point in this game exactly are you playing the role of a character and not concerning yourself mainly with the metagames of 1.)oneupmanship, 2.)comedy, 3.)satirizing academia.

I haven't played it, so am asking a question.

Sure thing. A perfectly fair question.

I think CHARACTERS are the heart of any RPG session, and consistency is key to that. If you had people only concerned with "doing funny stuff" or meta-commentary on academic politics, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

The last time I played the Roach, my character was an Egyptian-born junior professor of ancient languages, kind of shady and overly pedantic. Since it's a one-shot, and a comedy game, I definitely didn't inhabit the role as deeply as I might have for a more serious, campaign game.

But the fun - and much of the comedy - of the game derives from seeing the characters gradually deal with more and more chaos and madness and treachery. A distinct, recognizable persnality for each PC is crucial to that.

Does that answer the question?

It's absolutely legit to say that some people enjoy metagaming, and some enjoy being fully immersed in a single character. Although in my experience, that's a "points along a continuum" thing, rather than an "on-off switch" thing.

That "The Shab al-Hiri Roach" thing sounds like crap.

By description alone - its not a ropleplaying game. Its a parlor game or card game with delusions of RPG-hood that it will never achieve.

Its sounds like a game for bored and jaded academics that was wriotten by bored and jaded academics.

Sorry, but most people I know want to rescue the hostages, storm the castle,  save the day or world, run a tramp space-freighter, or maybe re-unite a couple in love while fighting an evil empire - sometimes all of those at once in the same two or three game sessions!


- Ed C.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416735Right, they were set up that way, note however, that fact has nothing to do with what I said as to WHY Pundit thinks that is the best way to go.

Sure it does. It was his response when asked why an RPG has to have a GM. He said because that's the way they were developed.

Now he wants to say that a traditional GM-player relationship is a fundamental aspect of the game, but rolling dice is incidental, like Vancian magic or a particular setting.

Seanchai

Quote from: Koltar;416745Sorry, but most people I know want to rescue the hostages, storm the castle,  save the day or world, run a tramp space-freighter, or maybe re-unite a couple in love while fighting an evil empire - sometimes all of those at once in the same two or three game sessions!

And that's just honky dory, but that does not mean that what other people enjoy playing isn't roleplaying. Just like there is no stone tablets saying that a rpg must have a gm, or dice for that matter, dragons and high paced action aren't must-haves for it to be a roleplaying game. Play what you want and do it just the way you and your group want to, but don't dictate what's fun for me or belittle the roleplaying games I play. It's not the Koltar way or the highway.

And yes, there could easily be some castle-storming and hostage freeing in the game I'm currently running.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;416777And that's just honky dory, but that does not mean that what other people enjoy playing isn't roleplaying. Just like there is no stone tablets saying that a rpg must have a gm, or dice for that matter, dragons and high paced action aren't must-haves for it to be a roleplaying game. Play what you want and do it just the way you and your group want to, but don't dictate what's fun for me or belittle the roleplaying games I play. It's not the Koltar way or the highway.

And yes, there could easily be some castle-storming and hostage freeing in the game I'm currently running.

E.X.A.C.T.L.Y
:hatsoff:

"Roach" was fun when I played it at a con.

It was about halfway between a parlor game and what's commonly thought of as a roleplaying game. (A "traditional" RPG if you prefer.)

It had pretty much no regard for in-character point-of-view. ("IC-POV", what's often referred to as "immersion", but that word has other connotations, so I'm trying to avoid it.). Players could summon "helpers" into the situation out of thin air, to get bonus dice, the setting itself was paper thin, and nothing in your description of what you did would have any effect on the outcome, except insofar as you described arbitrary "helpers" and might sway other players to add their dice to yours.

It also had a very scripted progression of scenes, and the cards you'd draw to do crazy things when possessed by "the roach" often didn't seem to work very well--don't recall if the instructions were ambiguous mechanically, or if they just produced results that made no sense in terms of what was going on. Either of these issues would have been mitigated by having a GM to adjudicate, but when players have to negotiate them at the table, it makes the game that much less conducive to IC-POV.

An early version is at http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/the-shab-al-hiri-roach but there was some amount of revision before it was sold as printed product. Not sure how much, but that might give you a sense of the game.

What exactly that has to do with the topic of the thread, I'm not sure.

Quote from: BWA;416700However, I see that you are using the term "immersive role-playing", so, in effect, you are discussing a particular style of role-playing. I got no beef with that.

No. All real roleplaying has Immersion as its goal.

RPGpundit

It has nothing to do with the topic. Its just standard Forge Swine Shilling.

RPGpundit

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;416800It was about halfway between a parlor game and what's commonly thought of as a roleplaying game. (A "traditional" RPG if you prefer.)

That seems like a pretty fair description to me. It's definitely not a game you'd get your group together to play every week. But it's still fun.

Quote from: Koltar;416745That "The Shab al-Hiri Roach" thing sounds like crap.

By description alone - its not a ropleplaying game. Its a parlor game or card game with delusions of RPG-hood that it will never achieve.

Its sounds like a game for bored and jaded academics that was wriotten by bored and jaded academics.

But you've never played it. So you don't really know one way or the other.

Jesus, I'd be embarassed to say things like that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416801No. All real roleplaying has Immersion as its goal.

Okay. Why? Where is that written?

If you can make a case for that, then that's one thing. Otherwise, you have to admit it is merely your personal preference.

Quote from: RPGPundit;416803It has nothing to do with the topic. Its just standard Forge Swine Shilling.

I thought the topic was the GM's role in an RPG. The Roach is an example of a game with a very non-traditional GM's role. How is it off-topic?

I'm not urging you to play it. It's just a good example of exactly what we're discussing.

NO ..."The Roach" is an example of a pretentious parlor game that has obviously been mis-labeled to suck people in.

Want a tongue-in-cheek, crazy RPG set in a University Campus ?
 There is a book called GURPS: I.O.U. - that would be much more fun than pretending to be College Professors that want tenure and who may or may not eat a strange roach.


- Ed C.

Quote from: BWA;416819Okay. Why? Where is that written?

If you can make a case for that, then that's one thing. Otherwise, you have to admit it is merely your personal preference.

The "case" for it is the fact that this is what the vast majority of gamers have always enjoyed about gaming, and that it is the essence of the very concept of the "role playing" game.  You immerse yourself in a character in an emulated world.
If you want to change gaming into something else, you have to make the case for why that should be the new definition of Gaming.  Ron Edward's rationale was that the vast majority of gamers were Secretly Miserable, because they were playing "incoherent" games and were trying to pursue something that he claimed did not exist. In other words, he started out by trying to invalidate both the central structure of the vast majority of games (including and especially the game that was by far the most popular of all time, D&D), and the central motive for play of the vast majority of players. Weak.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;416929If you want to change gaming into something else, you have to make the case for why that should be the new definition of Gaming.

That sounds like a lot of effort. Luckily I don't want to make gaming into something else. Off the hook!

It's a pointless argument anyway, the whole "Those RPGs aren't really RPGs!" thing. In every gaming store, every gamer's bookshelf, every gaming message board and the eyes of every gamer's wife/girlfriend*, they're all just RPGs. It's self-evident to everyone involved.

Back to the more interesting "GM role / authority" stuff.

* Or husband/boyfriend, as the case may be. Are there women gamers with romantic partners who are NOT gamers? A question for another thread.

Quote from: BWA;416941* Or husband/boyfriend, as the case may be. Are there women gamers with romantic partners who are NOT gamers? A question for another thread.

To answer your footnote: YES.

 One of my consistent players has a husband who has never gamed.

 Fifteen years ago had a player, who got into gaming because her boyfriend in college got her interested in it. They got married, he lost interest in gaming - she stuck with it and still loves it.

There is also a local RIFTS group that is all young women, ages 22 to 34.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;416948There is also a local RIFTS group that is all young women, ages 22 to 34.

Now THAT is a truly strange thing.

I admit that would be a little weird, since RIFTS is one of the most unashamedly "Adolescent Male"-oriented games in the entire hobby, but the fact of it is that RIFTS is just fucking FUN, and I can see absolutely anyone having fun with it if they can get over the mental barrier of realizing that its really meant to be enjoyed in that totally non-intellectual "action-adventure movie" kind of way.

RPGPundit