Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

before' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

And I honestly think that's just a more binary approach than serves the hobby well. Doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

And I honestly think that's just a more binary approach than serves the hobby well. Doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me.

 

Very true. And in fact, I at least don't. I think diluting that is what doesn't serve the hobby well. In my opinion it encourages the "Ref vs. Players" mindset.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Very true. And in fact' date=' I at least don't. I think diluting that is what doesn't serve the hobby well. In my opinion it encourages the "Ref vs. Players" mindset.[/quote']

 

That's odd, because I think the current approach does that more; when people feel they're on the same footing, they're far less likely to view someone who simply screws up as the enemy.

 

I'd also make a note that I've _seen_ what the current situation produces over the years; is your assumption about what "diluting" that power would do anything but hypothetical? (And no, the question is not rhethorical).

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

That's odd' date=' because I think the current approach does that more; when people feel they're on the same footing, they're far less likely to view someone who simply screws up as the enemy.[/quote']

 

Not in my experience.

 

I'd also make a note that I've _seen_ what the current situation produces over the years; is your assumption about what "diluting" that power would do anything but hypothetical? (And no' date=' the question is not rhethorical). [/quote']

 

Yes, in fact it is. My anecdotal evidence is contrary to yours. In my experience what the current situation produces over the years is closely knit gaming groups that enjoy playing in each other's games. The only people I've known who insisted on having codified rules to put limits on the Ref's powers have been those that viewed RPGs as a contest between at least the Ref and the Players, and generally each of the players against each other as well.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Yes, in fact it is. My anecdotal evidence is contrary to yours. In my experience what the current situation produces over the years is closely knit gaming groups that enjoy playing in each other's games. The only people I've known who insisted on having codified rules to put limits on the Ref's powers have been those that viewed RPGs as a contest between at least the Ref and the Players, and generally each of the players against each other as well.

 

I'm with archermoo on this one.

[Starlight]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

The only people I've known who insisted on having codified rules to put limits on the Ref's powers have been those that viewed RPGs as a contest between at least the Ref and the Players' date=' and generally each of the players against each other as well.[/quote']

 

While that is true it is, with respect, somewhat of a straw man argument. Paragon has never referred to codified rules to limit the GM's power in his posts as far as I can see. All mention of systems that include those have been from posters on the other side of the debate from him.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Another example is that I did an initial set of houserules for the campaign. I also told people that once they looked them over, if four of the six of them didn't like a rule and told me to change it, I'd change it. They understand what the campaign is about and its intended tone. They understand what I like as much or more than the inverse. They understand that a game I don't like likely won't go well or last long. So if something really is enough of an issue that 2/3rds the group wants it changed enough to vote for it, why should I be the immovable post in the process just because I run the game?

 

Is where I'm coming from here any clearer?

 

While that is true it is' date=' with respect, somewhat of a straw man argument. Paragon has never referred to codified rules to limit the GM's power in his posts as far as I can see. All mention of systems that include those have been from posters on the other side of the debate from him.[/quote']

 

The above post of Paragon's specifically talks about setting up rules by which the Players could force him to change his house rule. If you will note I never said anything about the codified rules being part of the game system.

 

As I've said multiple times, I don't have any problems with Players giving me their feedback. In fact I encourage it. But when I'm Refing I have the final say.

 

In my opinion, once you need rules to force the people that you game with to make sure that everyone has fun, the group is probably already so broken that there isn't any point in trying to continue. Obviously different people have different opinions about it.

[Starlight]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

The above post of Paragon's specifically talks about setting up rules by which the Players could force him to change his house rule. If you will note I never said anything about the codified rules being part of the game system.

 

Ah! Yes, archermoo, you are entirely correct. Somehow I completely missed seeing that post of Paragon's. I unreservedly withdraw my comment.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Ah! Yes' date=' archermoo, you are entirely correct. Somehow I completely missed seeing that post of Paragon's. I unreservedly withdraw my comment.[/quote']

 

No problem. It's a long thread. Heck, I knew what I was looking for and it took me a bit to find it.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Yes' date=' in fact it is. My anecdotal evidence is contrary to yours. In my experience what the current situation produces over the years is closely knit gaming groups that enjoy playing in each other's games. The only people I've known who insisted on having codified rules to put limits on the Ref's powers have been those that viewed RPGs as a contest between at least the Ref and the Players, and generally each of the players against each other as well.[/quote']

 

Ditto as well.

 

To add to this, I love getting feedback from my players. "More of this, please," "Less of that, if you don't mind," "I think we were doing that the wrong way," "I'd love it if my character got the chance to..." Those are all important aspects of my game and my gaming experience. Every game is, in this way, a collaborative experience. But as 'moo said, the final decision is up to the GM. If I can't handle that as a player, I can volunteer to run my own game, or I can walk.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Sadly, at this point I can only think of a number of moderately negative points to bring up that probably won't add anything.

 

I just want to point out why I put the final decision in the GMs hands:

 

The GM is being asked by the group (himself included) to weave together and tell the stories of all the characters in the group, including his own character. That means in a group of 6 Players a 1 GM he's trying to coherently tell 7 individual stories without making any one of them take the spotlight too long, or leave one of them behind.

 

Just from writing short stories for over a decade I can tell you 1 plot can be hard, imagine 7 that are combined into 1.

 

It's not out of some tradition of power or me vs him. or even trust.

 

It's a simply matter of respect for what I, as Player, am asking this one person to do.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

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.

It depends on how exact you need to be.

 

In the Amber case, I did ask a lot of questions. Of course, Amber doesn't have that many rules, and I needed to know exactly what to expect in the game. Although in the Amber case, I never got thrown out for asking questions.

 

 

On the other hand, the GURPS case was a bit different. There was no deviousness involved, I just wanted to know how the GM was going to handle one specific aspect of my character. Namely his INT based skills.

 

Before going on I need to give a small background on how GURPS does skills. This may or may not be something that the reader will already know. . . .

Note: everything I'm going to say about GURPS is 3rd edition stuff, I don't know about GURPS 4th edition rules.

 

In GURPS skills are fairly similar to Hero. It is a 3d6 roll under system. The real difference is that rather than some formula of 9 + STAT / 5, GURPS uses the straight stat. For example, you might have a Stealth Skill of DEX + 3, which means if you had a 12 DEX, you'd have a stealth skill of (12 + 3) or 15, and you'd have a Stealth roll of 15 or less.

 

There are no skill familarities in GURPS, skills start at 1/2 point and go up from there. 1/2 point in Stealth would give you a skill level of DEX-2, so our 12 DEX character would have a 10 or less Stealth roll for 1/2 point.

 

And rather than "everyman skills," GURPS uses skill defaults. For example, the default Tracking Skill is INT - 5, of if you don't have tracking and you have a 11 INT, your default tracking skill is (11 - 5) or 6. That means your base roll is 6 or less.

 

The issue was that my character had a 20 INT, and I was concerned that the GM might find his default skills too high. For example, my character's default tracking skill would be INT - 5 or 20 - 5, which would be a skill of 15 as a default. I realized that 15 or less is a pretty high default skill roll.

 

Apparently it was a good thing that I asked, because the GM did find this level of a default skill to be a problem. Which was fine with me, the GM doesn't have to use the rules in the book, I just want to know what rules we are using. I just wanted a specific answer about how he wanted to handle the defaults for my character. The GM continued to be evasive on the matter, and seemed to get more and more irritated as I continued to try to get a straight answer.

 

Since defaults seemed to be a problem, I suggested that I might instead buy a large number of 1/2 point skills for my character, so he wouldn't have to default on most skills.

 

As I said above, my character should have a default tracking skill of INT-5. But for 1/2 point, I could buy a skill level of INT-2, which would be a roll of 18 or less.

 

And for 15 points, I could buy 30 such 1/2 point skills for my character, which would cover a great many skills. And with a 20 INT, any 1/2 point INT based skill he got would come out pretty high.

 

The GM didn't seem to like this idea much better. And, at that point, he seemed to be tearing up the entire skill framework of GURPS. I think maybe he would have preferred something like Hero's 9+INT/5, which would have toned down the impact of a 20 INT somewhat. And he might have liked the idea of a low cost skill "Familiarity" which did not actually benefit from INT. But that is not how GURPS works; and that GM didn't know the Hero System.

 

In any case, I never got a straight answer for how that GM was going to do things, because I got kicked out over this discussion before we even started playing.

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

If you set out specifically to abuse the rules or a Ref's rulings' date=' 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.[/quote']

Assume that a Player spends his character's points on a magic sword, one which does not have the real weapon limitation.

 

Before the game, he askes the GM if his character's sword will have trouble chopping through heavy metal doors, or other similar objects (assuming it can generate enough damage on the damage dice, to overcome the object's defenses, of course).

 

Assume that the Player had some specific secret plan to use the sword to chop through doors to the character's advantage---so he's going to take advantage of this situation, if the GM says that the magic sword will be able to chop through metal doors. Perhaps the sword will be built without the focus limitation, so it can be summoned to the character's hand at will, and the Player hopes that his character can use it to get out of jail cells, or similar situations.

 

In that case, you're suggesting that a GM specifically tell a Player one thing before the game starts, and then change his ruling?

[Warp9]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Sadly, at this point I can only think of a number of moderately negative points to bring up that probably won't add anything.

 

I just want to point out why I put the final decision in the GMs hands:

 

The GM is being asked by the group (himself included) to weave together and tell the stories of all the characters in the group, including his own character. That means in a group of 6 Players a 1 GM he's trying to coherently tell 7 individual stories without making any one of them take the spotlight too long, or leave one of them behind.

 

Just from writing short stories for over a decade I can tell you 1 plot can be hard, imagine 7 that are combined into 1.

 

It's not out of some tradition of power or me vs him. or even trust.

 

It's a simply matter of respect for what I, as Player, am asking this one person to do.

 

As I've mentioned before, there is an example in the Amber RPG book which is a competitive style game. In this set up, the King dies at the start of the game and all the PCs are Princes of Amber who in competition for the throne.

 

The PCs plot and form factions, and stab each other in the backs. And they write the story with their actions.

 

The GM isn't really calling the shots in that case, he's more of a ref than a story teller. It just doesn't seem like he has to do as much in that case.

 

I think that in many competitive games, the GM is not really in charge of the story, and doesn't have to do as much, as I said above, he is more of a referee.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

 

 

Yes, in fact it is. My anecdotal evidence is contrary to yours. In my experience what the current situation produces over the years is closely knit gaming groups that enjoy playing in each other's games. The only people I've known who insisted on having codified rules to put limits on the Ref's powers have been those that viewed RPGs as a contest between at least the Ref and the Players, and generally each of the players against each other as well.

 

That was nonresponsive. Have you actually seen games with greater power sharing? Not what specific players wanted, but where it was actually implimented? If not, you don't really have is even ancedotal evidence; what you have is an untested hypothesis.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

The GM is being asked by the group (himself included) to weave together and tell the stories of all the characters in the group, including his own character. That means in a group of 6 Players a 1 GM he's trying to coherently tell 7 individual stories without making any one of them take the spotlight too long, or leave one of them behind.

 

Just from writing short stories for over a decade I can tell you 1 plot can be hard, imagine 7 that are combined into 1.

 

It's not out of some tradition of power or me vs him. or even trust.

 

It's a simply matter of respect for what I, as Player, am asking this one person to do.

 

This again, however, operates on a couple of premises, and I really don't buy either:

 

1. The GM is always doing more work. That's usually the case, but not always. In games where the Players are doing a lot of backstory and similar work and the GM is using a lot of pre-canned material, the difference in work can easily be negliable.

 

2. The GM is getting the same degree of fun out of the game, while doing more work. In my observation, GMs do it mostly because they like to, and that isn't just the at-the-table part; they like the set-up and other management work on the whole too. It isn't completely symmetrical (any game setup has some tedium in it) but the difference in fun yield to work isn't nearly as pronounced as some people put it on being, at least for GMs who are doing it out of choice rather than "no one else is willing to GM". As such I don't think that the GM is justified in outweighing the entirety of the rest of the group in value, which making him the final authority on rules does.

 

Essentially, there have been two traditional arguments for GM ultimate authority: the above (which I explain why I don't really buy) and necessity (which I buy only to a lesser degree).

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

 

Essentially, there have been two traditional arguments for GM ultimate authority: the above (which I explain why I don't really buy) and necessity (which I buy only to a lesser degree).

 

In my case, specifically for me, it's a case of "Don't change what ain't broken".

 

I've played in two "share power" games. They sucked. I've played in many many traditional GM is authority games, and I've only had one that sucked.

 

While I understand that may not be the case for everyone, you will never change my mind about which style is better. Much as I think you will never change your mind in the opposite direction.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

That was nonresponsive. Have you actually seen games with greater power sharing? Not what specific players wanted' date=' but where it was actually implimented? If not, you don't really have is even ancedotal evidence; what you have is an untested hypothesis.[/quote']

 

I play in them.

 

I. Play. In. Them.

 

The GM has a world, the GM asks for input. I provide input. The group works together. The GM then gathers all the ideas into a coherent Game Experience.

 

Sometimes ideas morph and change depending on how they fit with other ideas. Sometimes it turns out one ideas was a bad idea to begin with. Sometimes two people have the same idea.

 

What is so damn hard for you to understand that Archermoo and I speak from EXPERIENCE.

 

This is how we play. These are the kinds of people we play with.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Essentially' date=' there have been two traditional arguments for GM ultimate authority: the above (which I explain why I don't really buy) and necessity (which I buy only to a lesser degree).[/quote']

 

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?!

 

Are you being a contrary jerk for no reason?

 

Or are really calling me a liar?

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I play in them.

 

I. Play. In. Them.

 

The GM has a world, the GM asks for input. I provide input. The group works together. The GM then gathers all the ideas into a coherent Game Experience.

 

Sometimes ideas morph and change depending on how they fit with other ideas. Sometimes it turns out one ideas was a bad idea to begin with. Sometimes two people have the same idea.

 

What is so damn hard for you to understand that Archermoo and I speak from EXPERIENCE.

 

Because you aren't talking about the same thing I am, and I was addressing Archermoo, not you. Lose the chip. Seriously. If you find what I'm talking about offensive, stop reading this. But getting worked up and not paying attention to what I'm saying is doing nothing useful for the discussion.

 

What I asked Archermoo was if he had seen a game that had active, formalized power sharing about rules issues. His response did not tell me he had, so it was not a response to the actual question I asked. I'm not talking about creative sharing, and I'm not talking about the sort of sort of "I change rules when someone makes a good argument to me" procedure that's the mitigating factor in the normal hobby. He made a comment about the consequences of what I'm suggesting, and I asked him if he had actually seen it. His response was, as I said, nonresponsive; if he's saying "no, I haven't, but this is what I think would happen" that's fine, but at that point he's just suggesting a hypothetical and it has different weight in the argument than an argument from experience, and the appropriate responses are different.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?!

 

Are you being a contrary jerk for no reason?

 

Or are really calling me a liar?

 

I'm disagreeing with your assessment of the typical workload, and what it means. If you see that as either of the above, I really, really suggest you step back here.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

In my case, specifically for me, it's a case of "Don't change what ain't broken".

 

I've played in two "share power" games. They sucked. I've played in many many traditional GM is authority games, and I've only had one that sucked.

 

While I understand that may not be the case for everyone, you will never change my mind about which style is better. Much as I think you will never change your mind in the opposite direction.

 

What I'm trying to determine is whether the "power sharing" being discussed is the same kind I'm talking about. I see a big difference between creative sharing (where the players have manditory involvement in campaign design beyond their characters) and mechanical sharing, which is what I'm talking about. Were the two games you refer to the former, the latter, or a combination of the two?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I'm disagreeing with your assessment of the typical workload' date=' and what it means. If you see that as either of the above, I really, really suggest you step back here.[/quote']

 

And you're doing it in an extremely rude way.

 

And you're wrong in many cases as well.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Assume that a Player spends his character's points on a magic sword, one which does not have the real weapon limitation.

 

Before the game, he askes the GM if his character's sword will have trouble chopping through heavy metal doors, or other similar objects (assuming it can generate enough damage on the damage dice, to overcome the object's defenses, of course).

 

Assume that the Player had some specific secret plan to use the sword to chop through doors to the character's advantage---so he's going to take advantage of this situation, if the GM says that the magic sword will be able to chop through metal doors. Perhaps the sword will be built without the focus limitation, so it can be summoned to the character's hand at will, and the Player hopes that his character can use it to get out of jail cells, or similar situations.

 

In that case, you're suggesting that a GM specifically tell a Player one thing before the game starts, and then change his ruling?

 

Any time I discover that a player is specifically trying to hide things from me as a Ref to try and take advantage, my standard response would be to kick them out of the game. I'm not interested in gaming with people that see the game as a "Ref vs. Players" experience.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

And you're doing it in an extremely rude way.

 

And you're wrong in many cases as well.

 

So we disagree, and you don't like my tone. Got it.