Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

But you see, in the long run I'm of the opinion that's a habit that does more harm to the fun of a game than good; it leads to lazy GMing, and lazy GMing leads to a lot of negative experiences.

 

So essentially, I don't buy the premise that this really _does_ add to the fun of the game. At most the limits of process sometimes make it a necessity, but like most such things its not a virtue in and of itself.

 

All anecdotal but the best GMs that I have experienced have regularly abandoned the rules when it made sense for the game to do so. The worst GMs have often ruthlessly applied the rules whether or not it made the game worse.

 

 

Doc

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

All anecdotal but the best GMs that I have experienced have regularly abandoned the rules when it made sense for the game to do so. The worst GMs have often ruthlessly applied the rules whether or not it made the game worse.

 

 

Doc

 

Whereas the worst I've ever seen have been those who were casual with the rules; it lead them to using that casualness to solve any GMing problem they had, often at the expense of their players.

[Maur]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

and both cases aren't problems with the rules systems, but with the players and their GM. No book can force a GM to use the rules, only the players can via their expectation or unwillingness to continue to play. The only way that rules can truly be always enforced is via MMOs where the rules and gameplay are all handled by the computer and only the programmers can alter the rules which causes them to apply equally to all players.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I'm usually the Rules Lawyer at the table, the first to point out rules (even when they don't benefit me, like the GM forgot something and it would have ended in our favor had I not reminded him.)

 

I'm also one of the first people at the table to abandon the rules completely.

 

It's a balancing act to be sure. And I have been in my fair share of bad sessions and games because someone went too far one way or the other.

 

One the other hand - I'm not gaming to play slave to mathematics. Simple as that. And that's all the rules are - tricks of math. If it gets in the way of fun deviate.

 

For those who can't, or won't, or don't want to deviate... I'm glad as H- you're not at my table.

[Alibear]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

No system can have a rule for every situation. And even if it could it would not be a game to play. You'd be playing real life instead. That would not be half as much fun.

 

I'm done here, Paragon cannot or will not see reason. Case closed. Next!

[Trebuchet]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

No system can have a rule for every situation. And even if it could it would not be a game to play. You'd be playing real life instead. That would not be half as much fun.

 

I'm done here, Paragon cannot or will not see reason. Case closed. Next!

Will the last person leaving this thread please turn out the lights? It's Earth Day, you know.

[Starlight]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Will the last person leaving this thread please turn out the lights? It's Earth Day' date=' you know. [/quote']

 

***click***

 

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

and both cases aren't problems with the rules systems' date=' but with the players and their GM. No book can force a GM to use the rules, [/quote']

 

That can be argued about any benefit to rules whatsoever. If everyone is on the same page and is good with cooperating, no rules at all are necessary. The only difference between my view and some others in this thread is where I place the point where they're serving the game better.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

 

For those who can't, or won't, or don't want to deviate... I'm glad as H- you're not at my table.

 

When I'm convinced it actually makes for a better game, I'll deviate. I just don't happen to think that's anywhere near as soon as others on this thread do, and I think with a competently written set of rules it should come up rarely for anyone who has reasonable expectations.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

No system can have a rule for every situation. And even if it could it would not be a game to play. You'd be playing real life instead. That would not be half as much fun.

 

I'm done here, Paragon cannot or will not see reason. Case closed. Next!

 

Apparently since I don't share your view of how frequently the situations a decent set of rules can handle come up I'm unreasonable? Charming.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Apparently since I don't share your view of how frequently the situations a decent set of rules can handle come up I'm unreasonable? Charming.

 

I'm getting some far far stronger views than that by reading your earlier posts. maybe we aren't communicating but given the title of the thread I think I'm understanding you. Your last two actually seem to be more moderate than your earlier position to me.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Speaking as a moderator, let's keep it cool folks. Personal attacks are not necessary for conversation.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Whereas the worst I've ever seen have been those who were casual with the rules; it lead them to using that casualness to solve any GMing problem they had' date=' often at the expense of their players.[/quote']

 

That's a much more competative atmosphere than I'm interested in for an RPG. The Ref and Players aren't on opposite sides. They are working together to create an enjoyable game. The rules don't exist to force the Ref to be "fair". If I don't trust a Ref to be fair, I just don't play in their game.

 

And I'll have to throw in with the good Doctor: The worst GMs I've ever dealt with have been the ones that insist on sticking to the absolute letter of the rules in all situations. The best GMs I've ever dealt with were perfectly happy to take the advise in the Hero rules and go around the "letter of the law" when appropriate. To me it isn't a flaw in the rules that they don't automatically cover every possible permutation of every situation that any play group could ever possibly encounter. It is a strength that the rules accept that, give basic guidelines and then say "play with it if it doesn't work the way you want". In my opinion the Hero rules would be weakened by any attempt to reduce the amount of GM call built into the system. Not strengthened.

 

There is a huge chasm between "tweak the rules where needed to get them to fit your campaign" and "may as well just throw out the rules entirely".

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

That's a much more competative atmosphere than I'm interested in for an RPG. The Ref and Players aren't on opposite sides. They are working together to create an enjoyable game. The rules don't exist to force the Ref to be "fair". If I don't trust a Ref to be fair, I just don't play in their game.

 

 

I trust the GM to try and be fair. What I don't assume is that they'll succeed. The issue is, I don't think all GMs are equally good at this, and even the best ones fail on occasion. People can go through their entire driving lives without an auto accident; I don't see that as a good reason not to have seat belts.

 

There is a huge chasm between "tweak the rules where needed to get them to fit your campaign" and "may as well just throw out the rules entirely".

 

I don't disagree. I just think that people who find an intrinsic virtue in ignoring the rules when not strictly necessary are making as much a mistake as those who cling to them when they clearly aren't working, and I think there's a clear attempt in some people to project the former as superior.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I'm getting some far far stronger views than that by reading your earlier posts. maybe we aren't communicating but given the title of the thread I think I'm understanding you. Your last two actually seem to be more moderate than your earlier position to me.

 

I tend to present this strongly because I think its an aspect of the overly reverent attitude this hobby has to the power of the GM, and I think that meme is fundamentally a mistake. However its possible some people have also conflated my views with Warp9's, and we aren't writing on the same page even if we're using the same pen.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I tend to present this strongly because I think its an aspect of the overly reverent attitude this hobby has to the power of the GM' date=' and I think that meme is fundamentally a mistake. However its possible some people have also conflated my views with Warp9's, and we aren't writing on the same page even if we're using the same pen.[/quote']

 

It has nothing to do with reverance. It has to do with it being their world. The Ref is in charge. The players can choose to play or not, but the world is the Ref's. The Players control their characters. The Ref controls everything else.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I trust the GM to try and be fair. What I don't assume is that they'll succeed. The issue is' date=' I don't think all GMs are equally good at this, and even the best ones fail on occasion. People can go through their entire driving lives without an auto accident; I don't see that as a good reason not to have seat belts.[/quote']

 

In my opinion a better car analogy would be: More accidents are caused by people driving at a speed well below the flow of traffic than by people speeding reasonably to stay with the flow of traffic. It is entirely legal in most states to drive 45MPH on an interstate highway, even if the speed limit is 65. It is however considerably less safe than driving 70 in that same 65 zone if that is what everyone else is doing. One of the things I liked about California when I moved here is that their driving rules take this idea into account.

 

I don't disagree. I just think that people who find an intrinsic virtue in ignoring the rules when not strictly necessary are making as much a mistake as those who cling to them when they clearly aren't working' date=' and I think there's a clear attempt in some people to project the former as superior. [/quote']

 

And I think there is a clear attempt from some people to project the later as superior. Personally I never ignore the rules. I frequently modify them, and occasionally do things contrary to them. But I always keep the base rules in mind.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

It has nothing to do with reverance. It has to do with it being their world. The Ref is in charge. The players can choose to play or not' date=' but the world is the Ref's. The Players control their characters. The Ref controls everything else.[/quote']

 

And I consider that to _be_ excessive reverence. There may be some practical necessities for a GM to have more power than the players, but to nowhere near the degree its commonly assumed. And I say that as someone who GMs far more than he plays, and always has.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

 

 

And I think there is a clear attempt from some people to project the later as superior. Personally I never ignore the rules. I frequently modify them, and occasionally do things contrary to them. But I always keep the base rules in mind.

 

I don't think there's a thing wrong with presenting either as the case, if that's one's opinion. I do think its inappropriate to get offended when there's disagreement though, and take one as a given while writing off the other.

 

The truth is that different approaches here serve different people better, and as long as you don't demonize people with the opposite view, its all good. Unfortunately I think demonizing people who are serious about rules is all too common in this hobby, and as such, I'm going to continue defending that view whenever it comes up.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

And I consider that to _be_ excessive reverence. There may be some practical necessities for a GM to have more power than the players' date=' but to nowhere near the degree its commonly assumed. And I say that as someone who GMs far more than he plays, and always has.[/quote']

 

Understood. But as I said, reverence has nothing to do with it.

 

I have no interest in running a game that I don't run. And I don't have any interest in playing a game that the Ref doesn't run. As a Ref, I run the entire world outside of the Player's characters, and am responsible for it. As a Player I only run my character, and that is the limit of my responsibility.

 

And this is coming from someone who, particularly recently, plays much more than he Refs.

 

But I've pretty much stated my opinions here on another thread.

[archermoo]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

I don't think there's a thing wrong with presenting either as the case, if that's one's opinion. I do think its inappropriate to get offended when there's disagreement though, and take one as a given while writing off the other.

 

The truth is that different approaches here serve different people better, and as long as you don't demonize people with the opposite view, its all good. Unfortunately I think demonizing people who are serious about rules is all too common in this hobby, and as such, I'm going to continue defending that view whenever it comes up.

 

While there is certainly some demonization on both sides, I think for the most part it is just a matter of people stating what they consider to be important. From what I've seen of your "playstyle" in this and other threads, I doubt that I would enjoy gaming with you. And I doubt that you would enjoy playing with me. I don't think that makes you a bad person. Just not someone I want to game with.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Understood. But as I said, reverence has nothing to do with it.

 

I have no interest in running a game that I don't run. And I don't have any interest in playing a game that the Ref doesn't run. As a Ref, I run the entire world outside of the Player's characters, and am responsible for it. As a Player I only run my character, and that is the limit of my responsibility.

 

And this is coming from someone who, particularly recently, plays much more than he Refs.

 

But I've pretty much stated my opinions here on another thread.

 

To be dead honest, I'd argue that part of that is probably a simple case of your expectations from having developed in the hobby as it is. I don't mean offense, but I think a lot of this is expectations and inertia rather than what people really want.

[Paragon]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

While there is certainly some demonization on both sides' date=' I think for the most part it is just a matter of people stating what they consider to be important. From what I've seen of your "playstyle" in this and other threads, I doubt that I would enjoy gaming with you. And I doubt that you would enjoy playing with me. I don't think that makes you a bad person. Just not someone I want to game with.[/quote']

 

And in and of itself, that's fine. But I'll simply note that its _very_ common, even on this board, to badmouth people who are concerned about rules. I don't really think I'm overstating to say this is far more common than its opposite.

 

As I said, I also think its tied up in what is, to me, an overly protective view of GM prerogative.

 

Edit: "Concerned about rules" isn't probably a fair way for me to put that; there are people in this thread on the other side who are still are concerned about rules. More accurately "Convinced that rules should only be ignored in very limited situations." As an example, there have been people in this thread who indicated that a good reason for ignoring a rule was because it interfered with the story. If you present that that's not, per se, a good reason to ignore the rule, the response tends to be pretty aggressive (even if you qualify that you're mostly just talking about ad-hoc rules adjustment to make a story work rather than something more systematic to make the game the kind of game you like).

 

Given that, I don't think a little push-back occasionally is uncalled for. It just ought to stay civil.

[Dead guy on tab]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

No system can have a rule for every situation.

 

That's not what I heard about Super Squadron.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

More accurately "Convinced that rules should only be ignored in very limited situations." As an example' date=' there have been people in this thread who indicated that a good reason for ignoring a rule was because it interfered with the story. [/quote']

 

So waht is a good time to ignore the rules then.

 

Personally all of my gaming tends to focus round a principle that grew up on the Glornathan mailing lists (to my knowledge) of MGF - Maximum Game Fun.

 

Now to me a good story that the referee is helping the players to tell is exactly where MGF lies. It works for me and my group anyway.

 

To me anything that maximises the fun is good reason to ignore the rules. Anything that takes away from that fun can be safely ignored.

 

What would you believe to be good reason to ignore the rules - when is that 'evil' necessary in your books?

 

Doc