Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Which is good' date=' because it would be a stupendously complicated system to model combat with perfect accuracy. Combat is meant to be part of the drama, not the centerpiece of the game, so it doesn't have to be perfectly and meticulously accurate, it just has to be plausible and flexible.[/quote']

 

Aw heck - when you get right down to it I don't even need plausible half the time, just Usable.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

But I never actually say that GURPS is better. There is nothing there which actually involves a personal preference on my part.

 

Yes, in Hero, if I want to start using my TK regularly in a manner which I have not paid points for, I'm out of luck.

 

But what makes you think that I believe this result is a bad thing?

 

 

The out of luck phrase just struck me that way. Obviously I was mistaken:eek:

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Damage, even in real life, is an abstract little system that's impossible to pigeonhole.

 

Even if the original designers had one intent in mind it's obvious that it is a malleable intent that can be molded to what you need in a game anyways.

 

Yes, but to not acknowledge that intent ignores the real problems that decision caused, especially in the context of the benchmarkes that were used to derive things like weapons damage.

 

There were reasons to do it; a non-progressive damage system is almost certainly a non-starter for a superhero game, which is, after all, Hero System's root design. But there's a price for it, too, and it creates a lot of ripple effects too, and often those don't serve the system when its being used for something less stylized.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Then how can you flatly state that each DC is double the damage when you can't even agree on clear definition of damage? It doesn't matter what the original basis was; that's even less useful than claiming 1930's Superman comic strips are the "basis" for Champions. It's a starting point; no more.

 

As I said, if we didn't have a set of built in benchmarks in terms of weapon damage values and DEF values, it'd be less of an issue, but we do; as long as that's the case that progressive damage is built into the functional game and to ignore them in the context of this sort of discussion is simply nonsensical.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Much clearer thank you and not nearly as extreme as I thought. Player input to setting creation and into their characters place in the world is a very good thing. I still think to make a truly exception campaign the GM needs a vision and not that is his not a committee thing but it seems you're saying far less than that. It also helps when you have a group pretty much on the same wavelength. Both the GM and the players need to be happy with the setting.

 

 

Well, they aren't always on the same wavelength; that's rather the point. What everyone wants out of the game varies somewhat. What I don't see is why the guy sitting with the GM screen should be the total authority on how that's resolved, or even necessarily the major authority. In the end he doesn't have to run anything he doesn't want to, but that doesn't tell me he needs nearly the degree of power the hobby assumes to get an acceptable result, and I think in the end that assumption does a fair bit of harm.

 

 

I personally thinks the GM deserves kudos and respect for all the work he does the players don't.

 

Respect and power aren't the same thing (and honestly, I've seen campaigns where I'm not sure I'd say the GM was even doing that much more work than the players; certainly not more than the extra enjoyment he's getting).

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Hero damage is heavily abstracted, and its not exponential. There are parts of

 

 

As Warp9 quotes, it certainly was in intent, and the weapons and DEF values were derived with that assumption. As you correctly note, real damage, especially to living things, is far too complicated for that to tell the whole story or even most of it, but that doesn't change that intent and how it works in regard to inanimate objects (where energy applied gets much closer to the only meaningful metric, though even there structural issues of the target are a factor).

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

To make sure I remembered correctly I quoted the specific post above. You'll note it doesn't say "I strongly suspect that that is due to most people having expectation that have developed in the hobby as it is". You specifically used "you" in a post that was a response to one of mine, with no language indicating that it was meant in a general fashion, and context

 

 

I was, however, using the generic "you" in that sentence. Again, I apologize if it appeared more specific and personal than it was intended.

 

 

indicating that it was meant in a specific fashion. If your intent was not to claim that I personally did not have a well thought out opinion on the subject, you certainly worded it poorly. What I see is you making a specific statement about a specific poster, and then later claiming that you would never do that when confronted about it.

 

 

I certainly endevor not to without far more information than I have at hand. At most you could say (and I think if that sort of thing bothers you you have some justice in your view) that since I think most such people haven't really thought it through thoroughly, or have been so influenced that it colors their view excessively, and you're in the included class, that this means I think most likely that's the case. But I still see a difference between that and bringing it to personalities. If you don't, well, that's as it is.

 

 

But somehow it is other people that are being rude to you...

 

I don't recall my carefully posting a general post to the thread using someone by name and disparaging them. Do I need to quote the post where someone else did? You'll note that's the only one I've objected to here, as it was a baldfaced slam at me that did not seem to even have anything to do with the actual discussion at hand. If someone wants to attack my opinion, and even ascribe possible causes to it, that seems a different beast than going out of their way to attack me. Again, if the distinction isn't meaningful to you, it isn't.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Well, they aren't always on the same wavelength; that's rather the point. What everyone wants out of the game varies somewhat. What I don't see is why the guy sitting with the GM screen should be the total authority on how that's resolved, or even necessarily the major authority. In the end he doesn't have to run anything he doesn't want to, but that doesn't tell me he needs nearly the degree of power the hobby assumes to get an acceptable result, and I think in the end that assumption does a fair bit of harm.

 

 

 

Respect and power aren't the same thing (and honestly, I've seen campaigns where I'm not sure I'd say the GM was even doing that much more work than the players; certainly not more than the extra enjoyment he's getting).

 

Majorly disagree here. I simply put would never run a campaign with the constraints you're wanting. It seems you've had some bad experiences and want to guard against them. I , on the other hand, have playing in and ( so have been told ) made some pretty inspired campaigns that couldn't exist with out the GM having the major say and authority. Sounds like really shallow confrontational roleplaying to me.

 

I must be doing something right. None of my 3 campaigns is less than 20 years old. Players of course get tons of influence and input into the world but for anything really good to come a single vision is needed.

 

Maybe if you're just dungeon delvers but in our games the PCs evolve, have relationships, develop holdings, have deep friendships some marry have kids etc. They expect the world to be ready for any of these sorts of activities. It alot of work and you want the GM to do the setup work but not be allowed to have the major authority? No thanks!

[Vondy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

As Warp9 quotes' date=' it certainly was in intent, and the weapons and DEF values were derived with that assumption. As you correctly note, real damage, especially to living things, is far too complicated for that to tell the whole story or even most of it, but that doesn't change that intent and how it works in regard to inanimate objects (where energy applied gets much closer to the only meaningful metric, though even there structural issues of the target are a factor).[/quote']

 

Intent?

 

Nice authoritative statement, but no proof.

 

Prove it.

 

And before you do - go do some searching on past threads on this topic.

 

Some were debates of the first magnitude.

 

And yet, no definitive proof has ever been proferred.

 

Its a nice theory, but not one that holds water.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Majorly disagree here. I simply put would never run a campaign with the constraints you're wanting. It seems you've had some bad experiences and want to guard against them. I , on the other hand, have playing in and ( so have been told ) made some pretty inspired campaigns that couldn't exist with out the GM having the major say and authority. Sounds like really shallow confrontational roleplaying to me.

 

 

I've never run into the problem personally in my life, as I'm very fussy with whom I play. On the other hand, I've seen enough of GMs complaining about what struck me as perfectly legitimate attempts by players to get a little more control of their gaming experience that I have no reason to believe this is a meme that's serving people well on the whole. Its just what they're used to.

 

Maybe if you're just dungeon delvers but in our games the PCs evolve, have relationships, develop holdings, have deep friendships some marry have kids etc. They expect the world to be ready for any of these sorts of activities. It alot of work and you want the GM to do the setup work but not be allowed to have the major authority? No thanks!

 

And that's the common view, but as I said, not one I share, and not one I think most people would have if this hobby hadn't started with a basically top-down paradigm.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Intent?

 

Nice authoritative statement, but no proof.

 

 

I believe Warp9 gave a quote from the 1e rulesbook on the subject upthread. Past that, just what proof would you like?

 

 

Prove it.

 

And before you do - go do some searching on past threads on this topic.

 

Some were debates of the first magnitude.

 

And yet, no definitive proof has ever been proferred.

 

Its a nice theory, but not one that holds water.

 

Since short of getting George McDonald to post in this thread, it doesn't sound like you'd find anything proof, you'll excuse me if I find I don't care much about your disbelief.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I believe Warp9 gave a quote from the 1e rulesbook on the subject upthread. Past that, just what proof would you like?

 

 

 

Since short of getting George McDonald to post in this thread, it doesn't sound like you'd find anything proof, you'll excuse me if I find I don't care much about your disbelief.

 

 

I just checked my own 1981 edition and there it is on page 49. Whatever has evolved since is certainly a matter for debate but it seems clear at that time in the upper left hand column " The standard rule is that each die of damage or 5 points of STR is twice as powerful as the die before it. This geometric scale should be considered when attempting to add STR and damage together."

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I just checked my own 1981 edition and there it is on page 49. Whatever has evolved since is certainly a matter for debate but it seems clear at that time in the upper left hand column " The standard rule is that each die of damage or 5 points of STR is twice as powerful as the die before it. This geometric scale should be considered when attempting to add STR and damage together."

 

As you say, you can certainly argue that the concept has drifted since then (though I'll note that any system that has a rifle doing only half again the damage of a medium pistol is clearly using non-linear damage progression) but I'm really surprised there's any debate about this being the original premise; it wasn't exactly a big secret during the early period of the system, and there's enough oldtimers on here I'd have thought that'd be pretty well known.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I've never run into the problem personally in my life, as I'm very fussy with whom I play. On the other hand, I've seen enough of GMs complaining about what struck me as perfectly legitimate attempts by players to get a little more control of their gaming experience that I have no reason to believe this is a meme that's serving people well on the whole. Its just what they're used to.

 

And that's the common view, but as I said, not one I share, and not one I think most people would have if this hobby hadn't started with a basically top-down paradigm.

 

Well, you're certainly welcome to your opinions. I think you're wrong. And as I've said in the past, I think it is pretty insulting of you to assume that the reason that not everyone agrees with you is just that only you and the people you game with have ever actually put any thought into the topic. I think it is much more likely that people don't agree with you because they think you are wrong.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Well' date=' you're certainly welcome to your opinions. I think you're wrong. And as I've said in the past, I think it is pretty insulting of you to assume that the reason that not everyone agrees with you is just that only you and the people you game with have ever actually put any thought into the topic. I think it is much more likely that people don't agree with you because they think you are wrong.[/quote']

 

I don't think none of them have put thought into it. I think that even among those who have, its such a given in their minds that they can't get around that. Since that's the way people respond to a lot of "accepted wisdom" I don't see it as particularly insulting to assume it here. If others do, well, not much I can do about that, but its hardly a major slam to suggest that most people don't think outside the expected; that's just an acknowledgment of human nature. I'm sure there are areas of my life its just as true about me.

 

And just for the record, its not just me and people I game with; its just not common thought on the subject.

[schir1964]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Perhaps this conversation should continue over here: [thread=52514]The Genesis of +5 = 2x power?[/thread].

 

- Christopher Mullins

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I don't think none of them have put thought into it. I think that even among those who have, its such a given in their minds that they can't get around that. Since that's the way people respond to a lot of "accepted wisdom" I don't see it as particularly insulting to assume it here. If others do, well, not much I can do about that, but its hardly a major slam to suggest that most people don't think outside the expected; that's just an acknowledgment of human nature. I'm sure there are areas of my life its just as true about me.

 

And just for the record, its not just me and people I game with; its just not common thought on the subject.

 

Of course it's more likely that those of us who disagree with you actually have thought about it, are capable of forming our own opinions, have done so, and just disagree with you.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I don't think none of them have put thought into it. I think that even among those who have, its such a given in their minds that they can't get around that. Since that's the way people respond to a lot of "accepted wisdom" I don't see it as particularly insulting to assume it here. If others do, well, not much I can do about that, but its hardly a major slam to suggest that most people don't think outside the expected; that's just an acknowledgment of human nature. I'm sure there are areas of my life its just as true about me.

 

And just for the record, its not just me and people I game with; its just not common thought on the subject.

 

I kind of find this pretty insulting here.

 

You just stated that because I disagree with your view of the GM/Player relationship it's because I'm incapable of ignoring some unspoken tradition?

 

Who the heck do you think you are anyways?

 

I don't play in adversarial games, not only do I think outside your little box, I play outside of it too.

 

I can't even think of a constructive thing to say to you. It'd be a complete waste.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Reading through the posts, I think Paragon would be happy playing Burning Wheels. It has rules specifically limiting GM power, and GM decision can be overridden by the players.

 

Personally I find that idea almost abhorrent. I think the GM should have complete control - it's his world, he makes the decisions. And this is not any kind of knee jerk reaction - I've had many a discussions (& arguments) on RPG net about playing styles and trad vs non trad approach.

 

To me - it is all about what you want from a game - me, I like to take an immersive stance, and explore the world through the eyes of my character. Any kind of Player input into the way things work (aside from some out of session discussions with the GM) really kills that immersive experience. Just as the world is completely outside me, and my will, so too is the gameworld outside my character and his (and my as a player's will). The GM has to come up with everything except what I do. He needs almost absolute control to make that work.

Others have different approaches.

 

The problem I see (in general) with those that embrace non traditional gameplay (mostly from the above mentioned conversations on RPGnet) is that they found it wanting (or problematic due to bad GMs ect), and so they embrace something non traditional that works for them. However they quite often fail to see that the trad way is good for others, and label them as people not thinking outside the box, or on a lower level of gaming (just like the White Wolfers tend to look down on things that aren't angsty).

 

The pulled themselves out of the morass of traditional play (as they see it) and want to bring everyone else out of it, not realizing that to others it is not a morass.

 

Some of the "indie arrogence" comes into it too.

 

Not saying this is Paragon's belief or approach, but something I've seen from many others arguing his same position.

[Maur]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody" - Bill Cosby

[SteveZilla]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Reading through the posts' date=' I think Paragon would be happy playing Burning Wheels. It has rules specifically limiting GM power, and GM decision can be overridden by the players.[/quote']

 

I've never heard of it. I couldn't find it with Google -- can you post a link?

 

To me - it is all about what you want from a game - me' date=' I like to take an immersive stance, and explore the world through the eyes of my character. Any kind of Player input into the way things work (aside from some out of session discussions with the GM) really kills that immersive experience. Just as the world is completely outside me, and my will, so too is the gameworld outside my character and his (and my as a player's will). The GM has to come up with everything except what I do. He needs almost absolute control to make that work.[/quote']

 

While I can understand that the game world does not (usually) bend to the will/whim of a character in that world, at the same time, I don't want my GM using that as a reason to yank my character all over the place and make me feel like a marionette.

 

I like to use the analogy of equating my character's work to make his small corner of the world a better place, to the ascent of a mountain. I don't mind a climb that is difficult at times, but IMO it should not be 90-100% difficult. I don't mind climbing Mt. Everest -- I don't want to climb Mt Doom (with 7 different factions janking me in 11 different directions).

 

For me, the game is for relaxation and a bit of escape. If the game world is just as crappy a place as the real world, I have to ask myself why am I wasting my leisure time here?

 

So while I respect that the GM's world is his, he needs to respect that if I don't like it, I walk.

 

However they quite often fail to see that the trad way is good for others' date=' and label them as people not thinking outside the box, or on a lower level of gaming (just like the White Wolfers tend to look down on things that aren't angsty).[/quote']

 

Little to those angsty White Wolfer's realize that they've only traded one box for another.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I've never heard of it. I couldn't find it with Google -- can you post a link?

 

http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/xcart/manufacturers.php?manufacturerid=9

 

I mostly know about it because of some very heated discussions about how far a GM's "powers" should go on RPGnet (many of the things I read there have been echoed here, much less argumentatively) and the tone of writing and attitude of this game were mentioned often. It was one of RPGnets "Darlings" for a bit.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

While I can understand that the game world does not (usually) bend to the will/whim of a character in that world, at the same time, I don't want my GM using that as a reason to yank my character all over the place and make me feel like a marionette.

 

I like to use the analogy of equating my character's work to make his small corner of the world a better place, to the ascent of a mountain. I don't mind a climb that is difficult at times, but IMO it should not be 90-100% difficult. I don't mind climbing Mt. Everest -- I don't want to climb Mt Doom (with 7 different factions janking me in 11 different directions).

 

For me, the game is for relaxation and a bit of escape. If the game world is just as crappy a place as the real world, I have to ask myself why am I wasting my leisure time here?

 

So while I respect that the GM's world is his, he needs to respect that if I don't like it, I walk.

 

Exactly. The power of the Ref is that it is his world and so he is in control. The power of the Players is that they won't be interested in playing a game that they don't enjoy. I can see why people who feel that the relationship between the Ref and the Players is an antagonistic one would want there to be artificial limits on the power of the Ref. As I don't enjoy that playstyle (nor do I really even understand it, as even from the beginning I've never really played that way) I don't really have any interest in it. As a Ref, I have no interest in running a world by commitee. As a Player, I have no interest in taking time away from playing my character to be part of a commitee that decides how the world works.

 

If I end up playing in a game that I don't enjoy, I'll either talk to the Ref about it away from the table and see if we can work something out, or if that didn't work I suppose I'd drop out of the game and find a new one. But as I'm pretty picky about the people I'll play with, I've only very rarely had that problem. And of the very few times it has come up, I can't think of a time that it has gone past the "talk to the Ref about it" stage.

 

A good Ref takes what the players want in a game into account. But once you've gotten to the point where you need codified rules to force that, in my opinion the game is probably already a lost cause. As an analogy: People should be nice to each other. But there shouldn't be laws forcing people to be nice to each other. Being opposed to laws forcing people to be nice to each other doesn't mean that I think people shouldn't be nice to each other. It just means I don't think people should be forced to be nice to each other.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I can see why people who feel that the relationship between the Ref and the Players is an antagonistic one would want there to be artificial limits on the power of the Ref. As I don't enjoy that playstyle (nor do I really even understand it, as even from the beginning I've never really played that way) I don't really have any interest in it. As a Ref, I have no interest in running a world by commitee. As a Player, I have no interest in taking time away from playing my character to be part of a commitee that decides how the world works.

 

If I end up playing in a game that I don't enjoy, I'll either talk to the Ref about it away from the table and see if we can work something out, or if that didn't work I suppose I'd drop out of the game and find a new one.

 

A good Ref takes what the players want in a game into account.

 

Agreed on all those points.

 

One of the huge attractions for a roleplaying game for me is that unlike board games, card games ect There are no winners and losers. It's co-operative.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Which is good' date=' because it would be a stupendously complicated system to model combat with perfect accuracy. Combat is meant to be part of the drama, not the centerpiece of the game, so it doesn't have to be perfectly and meticulously accurate, it just has to be plausible and flexible.[/quote']

 

That is basically my perspective.

 

I don't think that you'll get total accuracy no matter what you do.