Quote from: Aos;291758Lets talk about the impact of mullets, or the reduction thereof on RPGs.

I personally think it's significant that I had the reverse mullet. What do you think?

Quote from: jrients;291756Yes.

And that's a logical fallacy.

What I want to know is where did the BigBadWhiteWolfPlayers touch the Pundit. Or is all of this like a Ted Haggard thing, where behind closed doors, the Pundit goes - "collaborate me"....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RandallS;291699No set of rules is likely to satisfy all the difference meanings of "balance" -- even in just the designers' and playtesters' campaigns. And every player and GM concerned with "balance" will complain that the game isn't balanced if their pet meanings of balance are ignored.

I'd agree with that.  Essentially all systems give GMs plenty of input into the process, and there's nothing wrong with that.  However, the topic was about the GM going beyond the rules.  i.e. If the GM thinks that character creation isn't balanced for his campaign, should he try to come up with a house rule or ruling that works for everyone, or should he just do something special for this character or that character?  

Regarding character creation -- the times when I've seen special GM dispensation to go outside the rules for certain PCs have usually gone over poorly; though conversely I do think that the GM should disallow certain otherwise-legal PCs, which may be necessary for a variety of reasons.  (This is usually written into the rules for point-build systems.)

Quote from: RandallS;291767Therefore, I think the idea that RPG rules should be balanced is a pipe dream. It's an impossible standard that no RPG designer can meet. Therefore it is up to the GM to balance things for his campaign world, adventures, group play style and group member interestes, disinterests, and quirks.

This is like a caveman saying, "You know, Og, that wheel will never amount to anything. You better stop tinkering with it and get back to huddling around the fire."

-L

Droog - As a GM, and I've GM'd far more than I've played over the years I always veiw opportunities to play as excellent learning experiences.  Heck, as a GM over the last thirty years, the number of players I've seen who could be arsed to learn the rules can be counted on one hand...

Mullets - It's not a mullet unless you go to a hair dresser and get the top taken off and leave the back.  I've got a mop at the moment, I've had mullets, albeit shorter ones.  I actually like my hair short but I generally don't have the time to get it cut regularly.  And that's why D&D sucks...

Group Preference - The group doesn't know what it wants until I tell them what they wants damnit!

Quote from: luke;291780This is like a caveman saying, "You know, Og, that wheel will never amount to anything. You better stop tinkering with it and get back to huddling around the fire."

Actually it's nothing like that. In brief: you are a cocksmock.

In detail: you may have called your own needlessly complicated rpg Burning Wheel, but it's nothing so revolutionary or useful as an actual wheel. It's just a game.

The wheel is a tool of universal application and usefulness. Whether you like it or not, it rolls or doesn't roll, depending on how well it's made.

An rpg is not a useful tool, but a game, and therefore has to match the tastes of the people using it. It's no use playing chess if you've no patience for waiting for the other player to move, nor playing Doom if you dislike violence, still less playing Myst if you hate puzzles.

Games must match the temperament of the players to be fun. Given that human temperaments vary, there can be no One True Perfect Game, nor any sense in seeking it out. The best we can hope for is as Grace Jones sung, "you're not perfect, but you're perfect for me."

Saying that System Matters or that rules trump GM is saying that some game designer who never met anyone in my group knows better what they'll enjoy than they do, or their actual GM does. System Matters just means "the game designer is the best GM." Which is obviously bollocks.

Quote from: luke;291780This is like a caveman saying, "You know, Og, that wheel will never amount to anything. You better stop tinkering with it and get back to huddling around the fire."

-L

rpgs aren't balanced because every PLAYER is different.  I've yet to see a golf handicap rule in gaming where poor players are rewarded for being poor players.  The closest I can think of is D&D 4e's anal retentive, nitpicky straight-jacket.  And even there one player will grasp the tactical options and apply them while the other will just grab for the most damage per round and wonder why they're so ineffective.

Quote from: luke;291691Yes, it's a game. Players of the game should have to abide by the rules of the game. Abiding by the rules makes for clear-cut decisions and easy play.

Also, the expectation that the rules are contained and "unbroken" has a knock-on effect. It encourages designers to write better rules and express them in a clear manner.

-L

No, it encourages rigid micro-games that are nothing more than paeans to the alleged genius of pretentious game designers.  And it turns GMing into a tedious monopoly-banker-esque chore with no reward.  A trained monkey could do the same job, if it could but speak.

RPGPundit

Quote from: David Johansen;291703I'm a solid rules over GM proponent.  So hang me already.

It's not White Wolf that's the cause.  No, it's years and years of absolutely horrible GMs, starting with the guy in junior high who killed my character every single session while heaping rich rewards on the other players, to the guy running Delta Green with Esoterrorists a while back, to the guy who was trying to run 4e for our group a couple weeks back.

I'm sorry.  Being GM doesn't give a body carte blanche to dick over the players.

But the problem there is not "The GM doesn't follow the rules!!", its "our GM is a dick".  FORCING him to follow the rules would just turn him into a dick who follows the rules. It wouldn't solve the fundamental problem.

Meanwhile, FORCING all GMs to follow the rules basically destroys the capacity of truly excellent GMs to do their job, meaning that you will never play more than mediocre games.

RPGPundit

The truly excellent GM can use whatever tools are handed him.

Pundit's question is a bit ambuguous. If by "ignoring the rules" he means that a GM can alter, remove or add to the game rules at will as long as he gives warning to the group, and that he gets to make rulings to cover parts that the games rules don't or are fuzzy about then yeah, I think he should be free to do that.

If on the other hand it means the GM gets to ignore all rules and rulings at his whim during the game, like say, decree the critical a player rolled to chop off the head of his NPC darling fails "just because" then no.

I agree with Edsan. Altering the rules because it will make "the story" better or more exciting (in the GM's estimation) is not something I'm in favour of. Making rulings on things not covered by the rules, or changing a rule the group agrees is illogical (and in advance of any dice rolls) is a different matter.

I wonder how many GM's in favour of changing the rules want to do so for the first reason, and how many for the second?

Quote from: jhkim;291779Regarding character creation -- the times when I've seen special GM dispensation to go outside the rules for certain PCs have usually gone over poorly; though conversely I do think that the GM should disallow certain otherwise-legal PCs, which may be necessary for a variety of reasons.  (This is usually written into the rules for point-build systems.)

Most of the complaints I gotten over the years have been when I disallowed characters that player thought were legal under the rules. This is mostly in point-buy games like HERO or GURPS when the character either was min-maxed to the point that it was 2 or 3 times the desired campaign power level but still with the point limit set.

My solution was to stop setting point limits or worrying about mathematical balance between advantages and disadvantages.  I told player the desired power level and told them to create an interesting character that fit the campaign description at or below that power level without worrying about point costs. I would look over characters and help players rewrite those that I thought were too powerful. More GM Fiat, but it worked fine. Characters often did not look balanced point-wise/game-system wise, but were fine in play. I would still get bitching from the min-maxers who had their tool for showing up all other characters taken away, of course.

The system, but the GM has absolute say as to which elements of the system they intent to use, any modifications to the said system they intend to play and in the event where the system is unclear they can interpret the system through a logical extrapoltaion of existing rules.
All of this stuff should be set up front before play begins along with any other flavour type rules, will the game be gritty or cinematic, will social interactions be roleplayed or based on skills (I don't mean the general chit chat but situations where a skill might be appropriate), will you use languages or can everyone speak the same tongue (never nice to spend 1/2you skill poiints on laugauges you never use).
If you stick to these basic premises then there are generally no issues and let the dice fall where they may.