Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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

 

Perhaps I could have worded it a bit better.

 

But it is just a natural consequence of going with the mechanics, rather than pre-empting them with "common sense."

[Warp9]

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.

 

For me it is about having an understanding of how things are going to work before you actually get to specific in game situations.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

For me it is about having an understanding of how things are going to work before you actually get to specific in game situations.

 

There are too many specific situations out there for pre-written rules to be able to cover them all. If you want to know about a situation before it comes up, ask the Ref. If you're worried about the Ref using the knowledge of what you are asking about against you, it sounds like you need a new group to game with. Same goes for thinking you wouldn't get a straight answer.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I'm unclear as to why pausing the game for a minute and asking the ref "Hey, will this work as I expect it?" is such a bad thing.

 

I do it all the time.

 

It's called communication. It's the key to cooperative gaming.

 

GMs don't bite.

 

Well... some do. But only if you ask nicely and bring them flowers . . .

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

 

GMs don't bite.

 

Well... some do. But only if you ask nicely and bring them flowers . . .

 

That brings the following to mind:

 

He: "On hot summer night, would you offer yout throat to the wolf with the red roses?"

She: "Will he offer me his mouth?"

He: "Yes."

She: "Will he offer me his teeth?"

He: "Yes."

She: "Will he offer me his jaws?"

He: "Yes."

She: "Will he offer me his hunger?"

He: "Yes."

She: "Again, will he offer me his hunger?

He: "YES!"

She: "And will he starve without me?"

He: "YES!"

She: "And does he love me?"

He: "Yes."

She: "Yes..."

He: "On a hot summer night, would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses?"

She: "Yes."

He: "I bet you say that to all the boys!"

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

There are too many specific situations out there for pre-written rules to be able to cover them all.

 

I do think that the pre-written rules can cover the important situations. And I think that Hero does a pretty good job of that.

 

Let me give you a specific example.

 

At one point I was playing in a game (non-Hero-system) and had a character with super-speed flight.

 

My character was always zipping around all over the place, which was starting to annoy the GM. My character would come up with his own ideas of what he wanted to do (things which had nothing to do with the GM's plans), and he'd go flying off to distant places. And the GM was looking for a way to limit my character a bit.

 

Unlike Hero, there were no specific rules for turning or acceleration. It wasn't really the sort of game system where you'd map everything out, and I don't think that the designers felt it was a big issue. The description "super-speed flight" was good enough for them.

 

And I don't think that the GM would have felt the need to get specific if he didn't feel that my character was abusing his super-mobility powers.

 

But the GM apparently thought it was necessary to create some specific limits. And the whole maneuverability factor apparently seemed like a good place to start. After all, super speed isn't useful if it takes forever to get going fast.

 

Obviously, it would have been best if the rules were already established (as they are in Hero).

 

And I wouldn't have had a problem with that if it had been done by the GM, out side the game---before the situation with my character came up.

 

However, IMO the GM's ideas on the super speed flight issue were created while he was being annoyed by a character with those abilities, and I think it showed.

 

 

If you want to know about a situation before it comes up' date=' ask the Ref. If you're worried about the Ref using the knowledge of what you are asking about against you, it sounds like you need a new group to game with. Same goes for thinking you wouldn't get a straight answer.[/quote']

There was an Amber Diceless game which I played in where I spent hours and hours asking those types of questions.

 

In many cases, there was something which I intended to use for my character's advantage in the game, although often times the questions seemed innocent enough. I most often got the answer I expected, or was hoping for. And I think that the GM would have held to his word, if he'd remembered all the answers given.

 

But I asked so many questions, and they probably didn't seem important to the GM at the time. So, once we got to the game, and it became clear, in that specific context, how my character was actually going to use (or abuse) some given ability/situation, things were different. The GM's answers changed from what he'd said earlier.

 

As I said, I don't think he was changing his direction intentionally, and I often wished I'd recorded all our Q/A sessions.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

If you want to know about a situation before it comes up' date=' ask the Ref. If you're worried about the Ref using the knowledge of what you are asking about against you, it sounds like you need a new group to game with. Same goes for thinking you wouldn't get a straight answer.[/quote']

 

I'll add a different example to the example above.

 

In the Amber example in my previous post, I was being a bit devious when I asked the questions, and I didn't always let on what how I was planning to use a given ruling (part of that was due to the competitive nature of Amber, the Players actually bid against each other at the start of the game).

 

 

But here is a different example, where I was being more direct. . . .

 

This was a GURPS game which I was planning on getting involved with. Before building my character, I asked the GM a number of questions about how he'd handle skills and skill defaults.

 

I'd point out something in the rules (which I'd figured he might find abusive---I definitely was not trying to hide anything here), he'd tell me he didn't like it, so I'd ask for specifics in regard to how he would handle the situation.

 

That guy kicked me out of his game before I even got a character made.

 

 

And I had a Shadowrun GM who got up and walked out on me for asking too many questions before the game.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

That guy kicked me out of his game before I even got a character made.

 

 

And I had a Shadowrun GM who got up and walked out on me for asking too many questions before the game.

 

Remember what I said about Maximum Game Fun?

 

Well, it has to be fun for the GM too. If you give the GM the impression that playing (notice the word, not competing but playing) is going to be so much work it will detract from his fun (and potentially the other players' fun) then that is exactly the course I would predict.

 

There is line to be trod between ensuring you are clear on the rules and pestering...it sounds like you strayed over that line.

 

When I am asking questions of a GM I usually ask one or two pertinent ones that allow me to see what kind of GM they will be. You can then tailor your play style to the GM or find another game.

 

I play with a munchkin GM. He is a friend and all of our gaming group recognise his style and adapt to it when he runs a game. In his game our characters are all munchkinised to the nth degree and we push the rules to their limits. We have a great laugh and it is interesting to play in a different way. We do not insist that his game suits the style the rest of us play in and he does not insist that our games suit him.

 

We get together as friends and play a game for the enjoyment of everyone. We respect the amount of work the GM puts into his game, listen to how he wants his game played and then we try to enjoy ourselves.

 

It seems so simple!

 

 

Doc

[Silbeg]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Amazing...

 

Things become all the more clear now...

The need for increasing GM control and authority caused by a player that feels the need to take advantage of everything.

 

Whatever happened to enjoying the game, playing along with the story, being a good sport... There is always more than one person in the game, and most RPGs (if not all) are not competitive, well at least not "me against the other players and the GM", but rather "us against the villainy in the world".

 

To see a story on true sportsmanship, see http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/story/8091708?GT1=39002

http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/story/8091708?GT1=39002

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I do think that the pre-written rules can cover the important situations. And I think that Hero does a pretty good job of that.

 

Let me give you a specific example.

 

At one point I was playing in a game (non-Hero-system) and had a character with super-speed flight.

 

My character was always zipping around all over the place, which was starting to annoy the GM. My character would come up with his own ideas of what he wanted to do (things which had nothing to do with the GM's plans), and he'd go flying off to distant places. And the GM was looking for a way to limit my character a bit.

 

Unlike Hero, there were no specific rules for turning or acceleration. It wasn't really the sort of game system where you'd map everything out, and I don't think that the designers felt it was a big issue. The description "super-speed flight" was good enough for them.

 

And I don't think that the GM would have felt the need to get specific if he didn't feel that my character was abusing his super-mobility powers.

 

But the GM apparently thought it was necessary to create some specific limits. And the whole maneuverability factor apparently seemed like a good place to start. After all, super speed isn't useful if it takes forever to get going fast.

 

Obviously, it would have been best if the rules were already established (as they are in Hero).

 

And I wouldn't have had a problem with that if it had been done by the GM, out side the game---before the situation with my character came up.

 

However, IMO the GM's ideas on the super speed flight issue were created while he was being annoyed by a character with those abilities, and I think it showed.

 

 

 

There was an Amber Diceless game which I played in where I spent hours and hours asking those types of questions.

 

In many cases, there was something which I intended to use for my character's advantage in the game, although often times the questions seemed innocent enough. I most often got the answer I expected, or was hoping for. And I think that the GM would have held to his word, if he'd remembered all the answers given.

 

But I asked so many questions, and they probably didn't seem important to the GM at the time. So, once we got to the game, and it became clear, in that specific context, how my character was actually going to use (or abuse) some given ability/situation, things were different. The GM's answers changed from what he'd said earlier.

 

As I said, I don't think he was changing his direction intentionally, and I often wished I'd recorded all our Q/A sessions.

 

You give perfect examples of a competative Ref vs. Players environment. Which quite honestly makes me very happy that I don't game with you.

 

If you set out specifically to abuse the rules or a Ref's rulings, I would certainly hope that they would change either the rules or their rulings. I know I would, if I didn't just kick you out of the group.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Amazing...

 

Things become all the more clear now...

The need for increasing GM control and authority caused by a player that feels the need to take advantage of everything.

 

Whatever happened to enjoying the game, playing along with the story, being a good sport... There is always more than one person in the game, and most RPGs (if not all) are not competitive, well at least not "me against the other players and the GM", but rather "us against the villainy in the world".

 

To see a story on true sportsmanship, see http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/story/8091708?GT1=39002

http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/story/8091708?GT1=39002

 

Oh, it is alive and well at many gaming tables. I'm sure there are ones that have the Ref trying to beat the Players, and the Players trying to beat the Ref. But I'd like to hope that they are a minority. I have for the most part avoided them in the 30+ years I've been gaming. And intend to continue doing so.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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

 

And as in all things, one of the elements that forms the process of doing so is expectations. As I said, I don't see this as especially different from most things in life, and I consider social inertia part of reality.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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?

 

 

Then as I said, you do. This is nothing but my view of most decision making, including no doubt my own in some areas.

 

 

 

Who the heck do you think you are anyways?

 

 

Someone who believes few people are as uninfluenced by what they've gotten used to as apparently you do? If that's insulting, really, I don't know what to tell you.

 

 

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

 

 

Again, you're confusing me with Warp9 here. This has nothing much to do with adversarial styles; it can limit problems in those, but its far beyond anything to do with that.

 

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

 

If you find you can't engage with my point, don't.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

And as in all things' date=' one of the elements that forms the process of doing so is expectations. As I said, I don't see this as especially different from most things in life, and I consider social inertia part of reality.[/quote']

 

Or it could be that you yourself have settled into a comfortable belief and are unwilling to challenge it due to your own social inertia. Several people have already said they (and their gaming groups) have considered and rejected your theory. Indeed, your theory only works if you believe the GM/player relationship is inherently adversarial, and I don't think that's been true in the gaming world for several decades. In my experience, it hasn't been the norm since the mid-late 80s -- perhaps your expectations have you still rooted back in that timeframe's mindset?

[Paragon]

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.

 

 

Nothing about making some power available to players requires them to use it. And honestly, there's layers there; a mismatch in what feels appropriate in rules can be a giant enemy of immersion, so an immersive player can have just as big a stake in rules elements as anyone else.

 

The problem with things like Burning Wheel (as with a number of the indie games) is that it not only expects player involvement on these levels, it pretty much demands it, and structures its rules with it in mind. In the end, this isn't a rules issue as such; its a social contract issue, and doesn't need to be embodied in the rules.

 

(That doesn't say that there's not a mindspace for games that explicitly expect ongoing player involvement of the sort Burning Wheel and its kin do, but that excludes some play styles too--its far too intrusive for most immersives as you more or less reference, and as such, not really what I'm talking about).

 

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).

 

 

I don't think of them as a lower level of gaming at all. I don't really see it as fundamentally a difference in style, honestly. Keep in mind I'm primarily talking about rules decisions here, not operational decisions, and the majority of those _should_ be made outside normal play, not on the fly (in fact, a metric I have of when a game is too rules light is when I have to make too many on the fly). If a player such as yourself is comfortable with the GM doing all of those, that's perfectly cool with me. Its when its the _expectation_ that I don't think this is serving the game well overall, unless you happen to have a _very_ coherent player group, far more than I have any reason to believe is typical.

 

 

 

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

 

Well, among other things, they're usually talking a far broader issue than I am. Note in my discussion of the campaign setup I did that I did this all _before_ play; I'm enough of an old-style RGFA simulationist that I usually avoid futzing around with the basic setting assumptions after the start of play that it'd just be a nonstarter there. But in any case, what I'm really advocating here doesn't have anything to do with campaign design or operation, but the base mechanical rules that the campaign operates on.

 

(Now, of course, you can argue that you can't _entirely_ separate those, but I think this is a case where if the players and the GM are so far apart on their understanding of what is trying to be done that what the players want out of the rules won't let the GM run the campaign he sees, that there's a bigger problem that needs to be resolved before you can continue effectively anyway).

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I'm unclear as to why pausing the game for a minute and asking the ref "Hey, will this work as I expect it?" is such a bad thing.

 

 

 

As long as you know when you need to do it, and it doesn't happen often, nothing. But those are both big ifs, especially the "often". You can take up a hell of a lot of game time doing that under the wrong circumstances, and you don't always know when a GM is going to judge a rule you think as applicable as not.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Or it could be that you yourself have settled into a comfortable belief and are unwilling to challenge it due to your own social inertia. Several people have already said they (and their gaming groups) have considered and rejected your theory. Indeed' date=' your theory only works if you believe the GM/player relationship is inherently adversarial, and I don't think that's been true in the gaming world for several decades. In my experience, it hasn't been the norm since the mid-late 80s -- perhaps your expectations have you still rooted back in that timeframe's mindset? [/quote']

 

I think teh bunneh has hit it on the head.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Or it could be that you yourself have settled into a comfortable belief and are unwilling to challenge it due to your own social

 

 

Always a possibility. But just like the other participants in this thread, I can only go by my best evaluation.

 

inertia. Several people have already said they (and their gaming groups) have considered and rejected your theory. Indeed, your theory only works if you believe the GM/player relationship is inherently adversarial, and I don't think

 

 

No, again, I think that's Warp9's position, but not mine. If I was arguing this primarily based on GMs who make these decisions out of malice or conflict it'd be true, but that's not my position. My position is that a GM is not necessarily the best person to judge what rules will work best in a situation just because he's the GM. He can be making that decision for all the best intentions, and still be wrong, but because that's what we've been told to expect since 1974, that's what gets done.

 

Adversarial versus non-adversarial is really a red herring here, because it hasn't got anything to do with why I'm suggesting this.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

My position is that a GM is not necessarily the best person to judge what rules will work best in a situation just because he's the GM. He can be making that decision for all the best intentions' date=' and still be wrong, but because that's what we've been told to expect since 1974, that's what gets done.[/quote']

 

Depends on approach. I'm a "Game rules are the physics of the world" kind of guy. With that as my approach, then yes, the GM is always the best person to judge the rules, because the world is his.

 

I can see that from other points of view, or approaches to gaming that this is not necessarily true.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Depends on approach. I'm a "Game rules are the physics of the world" kind of guy. With that as my approach, then yes, the GM is always the best person to judge the rules, because the world is his.

 

I can see that from other points of view, or approaches to gaming that this is not necessarily true.

 

I don't even think that follows then; its entirely possible for a GM to have a particular view of how something works that doesn't seem to even be consistent with his own world, just like there are people who have somewhat strange view of how some real world phenomena work.

 

But as you say, there's room for differences on that grounds.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I don't even think that follows then; its entirely possible for a GM to have a particular view of how something works that doesn't seem to even be consistent with his own world' date=' just like there are people who have somewhat strange view of how some real world phenomena work.[/quote']

 

I can see that. But I tend to game with friends, so I tend to trust the GM. He has his world, he has his story. If something seems a little wonky in the game, I figure it is there for effect. If it really impacts my character I'll talk to the GM out of play.

 

I've never had any problems with my approach, in the 30+ years I've been gaming.

 

So I guess going back to the title of the thread, I would always trust a GM before trusting the system.

I've only had a GM who's game I left once in my life. It's worked for me. From the Horror stories I hear about bad players and bad games, though, it seems I've just been lucky.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I can see that. But I tend to game with friends, so I tend to trust the GM. He has his world, he has his story. If something seems a little wonky in the game, I figure it is there for effect. If it really impacts my character I'll talk to the GM out of play.

 

I've never had any problems with my approach, in the 30+ years I've been gaming.

 

So I guess going back to the title of the thread, I would always trust a GM before trusting the system.

I've only had a GM who's game I left once in my life. It's worked for me. From the Horror stories I hear about bad players and bad games, though, it seems I've just been lucky.

 

Lucky or picky. My experiences pretty much line up with yours. And I've been gaming about as long as you, and in 4 different states.

 

And as a general note, as a Ref I certainly don't have any problems with Players letting me know their opinions on my rulings and such. If anything I have a problem with them NOT letting me know their opinions. I'm more than willing to listen to reasonable arguments outside of play time, and am happy to consider reasonable suggestions. But as the Ref, the final call is mine. As I've said before, as a Ref my "power" is that the world is mine, so the decisions about how it works are mine. As a Player my "power" is deciding if I want to play or not.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I can see that. But I tend to game with friends, so I tend to trust the GM. He has his world, he has his story. If something seems a little wonky in the game, I figure it is there for effect. If it really impacts my character I'll talk to the GM out of play.

 

I've never had any problems with my approach, in the 30+ years I've been gaming.

 

So I guess going back to the title of the thread, I would always trust a GM before trusting the system.

I've only had a GM who's game I left once in my life. It's worked for me. From the Horror stories I hear about bad players and bad games, though, it seems I've just been lucky.

 

 

Well honestly, there's nothing wrong with letting the GM have all the reigns; its the _assumption_ that this is the only right way to do it that's the problem, because it breeds that expectation in GMs and players both, whether its serving them and the game well or not.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

its the _assumption_ that this is the only right way to do it that's the problem' date=' because it breeds that expectation in GMs and players both, whether its serving them and the game well or not.[/quote']

 

And while that assumption is strong in the gaming community (see rule 0 in D&D) a lot of the new games, and especially indie games are going a great deal away from that - Burning Wheel (as mentioned before), Wushu (where the group can veto if a particular description gets a bonus), Dogs in the Vinyard (Say yes or roll dice) or Capes (There is no GM, everyone takes turns running the scene, and switching who plays whom). Heck even more mainstream things like Buffy with it's drama editing points pull away from that traditional approach.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

And while that assumption is strong in the gaming community (see rule 0 in D&D) a lot of the new games' date=' and especially indie games are going a great deal away from that - Burning Wheel (as mentioned before), Wushu (where the group can veto if a particular description gets a bonus), Dogs in the Vinyard (Say yes or roll dice) or Capes (There is no GM, everyone takes turns running the scene, and switching who plays whom). Heck even more mainstream things like Buffy with it's drama editing points pull away from that traditional approach.[/quote']

 

Yeah, but the truth is that the exposure to the indie games is tiny; it doesn't make a dent in the years of expectation bred because, honestly, Gary Gygax was a very top-down GM and expected everyone else to be.