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)