From the original thread. I want to continue the discussion here, and will come back to ask some questions and make a few comments.

I've played a LOT of diceless, rule-less games, and even some where there was a GM. It ALWAYS went to hell as soon as there was a GM there. He would have his special friends. Suddenly these special friends had characters who could do everything. When you chose to protest, suddenly you were a trouble-maker. Especially on the internet. I have had successful sprees of dice-less, rule-less games without a GM.


I'll repeat myself again:
In kindergarten, you played make-belief.

Then you found out, that at some point either the bully always wins, or it's just random going around in circles.

So you make rules, in order to resolve conflicts that occur within the imaginary world. That's called making a game.

And then (by your reasoning) you put a guy in charge who can get rid of the rules again at a whim, in order to do what he thinks is fun for the group. And I'm supposed to trust him? If the rules are good, why would I even need to?

Where is the fricken logic in that?

I'll buy into your opinion when the rulebooks say:
When the rules get away of ANYBODY's fun, then screw them, player, GM, whatever. No, I'll still not buy into that.

If the rules are bad, make new rules, instead of putting a guy there to resolve conflicts for you again. If you trust this guy so much, why have rules in the first place? Playing a game with rules that don't work makes no sense, because then you should be playing a game with rules that actually do work.

Brain, I think you need to take a step back and realize that how you're arguing in this thread is actually exactly what you're railing against. You're not looking for discussion, you're looking for people to acknowledge your playstyle as "right". And no offense? If this is what debate is like at your table, I wouldn't want anything to do with it. Sorry.

You're also being incredibly disrespectful to people trying to talk to you about this. You can't go about yelling at people for not getting at you while at the same time disrespecting what they're doing at their own tables. You could take a step back and listen to what they're saying and critique your own style; none of us are ever perfect.

You keep appealing to an authority you don't have. You keep saying, "this has worked at thousands of tables!" and "it works great for everyone!" but you've presented us no evidence of this. No Actual Play reports, no game session recordings, no new rule system playtested by a thousand tables - hell, psychological blind studies utilizing of a bunch of people playing in different styles. Stop using this appeal, dude; it's not getting you anywhere when there are people whose games have been running fine and fulfilled for years upon years.

But if you want to continue to use it - start digging up some evidence. Because you're not doing much more than "nuh uh, it totally works out great!"

You're using the pop culture version of what Gygax's games were like. Have you ever read anything by Gygax, any of Gygax's players, or people playing in the Old School Renaissance genre, whose theme is "rulings, not rules"? That's pretty much up your alley, dude, but you're being blinded by a version of Gygax that isn't true. The "ha! You're dead!" modules exist solely because of conventions, whose goal back in the day was to challenge players and see how far they could get. Gygax himself was pretty much about challenging you in the arena of intelligence, not brute strength; go back and read some of his Dragon articles from the 00's. Or read some of the stuff Old Geezer talks about over on RPG.net. Or crack open a copy of Professor Layton and X to get a feel for what his home games have been described as.

If anything though, this topic has made me dig more into gaming theory and group play, and I'm at least grateful for that.

(Dungeons and Dragons is a crazy thing to talk about in the context of gaming theory. 3.* is, well, a tightly oiled engine that people are way too fetishized about, and 4e would be an indie kid's dream if they'd jettisoned / re-jiggered the "outside of combat" stuff; it's a tight, focused game of player challenging tactical combat that's perfect for "Step On Up" style play.)

You've had a consistent run of bad GMs. Realize this, deal with this, and move on, dude. You're obsessing and it's unhealthy.

So, we return to the anecdotal "I have played with Bad GMs, therefore GMs shouldn't be allowed to be in charge."

Wheras for most people, this would be "I have played with bad GMs, so I stop playing with them and find good ones."

My anecdotes are as equally valid as yours, and I can say without a doubt that some of the free-form Star Trek games sessions I played were the most fun, most role-playing intense gaming sessions I have ever been involved with. They would not have worked via "rules by consensus", they required complete GM trust.

Interestingly, one of the characters we ran into in those games - Q - could not, apparently, appear in one of your games, as such beings have unlimited power and you don't trust GMs to weild that.

You also appear to be ignoring the simple fact that GMs can weild unlimited power without having to break the rules. You have to trust the GM to be telling a good story, because if he decides it would be funny to kill of the entire party he can do so, easily, well within the rules, no matter what voting arrangements the players have. A GM who wants to be a dick can be a dick no matter what the players decide, with the exception of making the decision to not play in his game any more.

And what happens in your games if 3 of the players are best buds and consistently vote for things that are better for them than for the other player and the GM? Maybe they are all playing non magic types, and don't want NPC mages to be able to hurt them, so vote for changes to the magic system, neutering the GMs mages but as a by-product screwing over the one player that is playing a mage? That sounds like it could be a problem, wheras you have constantly stated "My way has NO problems." - and we are now up to at least 3.

- can't play games in which rules are required to be secret
- can't encounter beings of unlimited power, even if they are part of the canon
- can be manipulated by player power-blocks to make them more powerful vs NPCs at the expense of other characters.

But once again, on behalf of the others who have already stated it: Do what the heck you like at your table. Do what works for you. But you look a damned fool when you walk in and demand that your way is best for everyone else too, based solely on your own anecdotal evidence.

Debate at my table goes like this: (And again, this only happens during play during learning phases.)
"Alright, we've found a problem in the rules, I've thought about it and propose this".
And then the others might say:
"No, I think we should do it like that, because..."
And when noone has anything more to add to the mechanical bits.
"Alright, so... who thinks this is better, and who thinks that is better? Ah, alright, then we'll take..."

You see, there are no wrong and right rules, but there are of course good and bad rules. That's up to the debate. On the other hand, there is only one best baseline that you write in a rulebook about what everyone should do within the game. A baseline that is then completely open to interpret as you like, and draw whatever social contract that you like. That baseline that allows this by default is obviously superior to the one that first restricts you, then requires you to ignore parts of it, and then can be made into a flexible thing.

And at this point we are still not in the process of logically discussing this, because one side keeps coming back to empirics. I am intentionally not always coming back to my own bad experiences.

I'm not disrespecting what they are doing at their tables, I'm disrespecting the baseline they are drawing: That GM-choice is the baseline, and everything goes on from there. Fact is - alright, let's rephrase that, since it was criticized - IN MY OPINION, most of the sensible people arguing here actually do not run or play in really authoritarian tables. Probably they haven't ever, so they don't know what it's like. Those that do and still like it, I guess, were either the GM, very lucky, or... I don't know. The closest comparison I can find is poor people voting Republican.


I've never quoted any kind of evidence that points to democratic gaming being better. Because there IS NONE! I'm saying that the baseline of "work things out together and make rules as a group" CAN work for everyone, while the other one has been proven, both logically and by -a dmittedly circumstantial - evidence not to. If you want to see within this thread how it's been proven then read that post above by the guy calling himself Ol'scratch. That guy is basically making my point for me.

And this has nothing to do with special cases, like game types that require that not only the characters don't know what's going to happen, but the players don't either. I'm only concerned with the baseline.

(Who said they didn't want to see me playing Paranoia? Damn right you are (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) . But calling Paranoia a roleplaying game is just...off. It may be roleplaying, but it certainly isn't a game.)

Oh, and the funny thing is, authoritarian systems mostly DO work, because any opposing opinions are disregarded, and the person holding them thrown out or otherwise dealt with, like calling them assoles and troublemakers and such. The entire problem is that the system works as long as everyone is having fun. But if one person stops having fun, then... well, the others will still think it's working, but this guy gets the shaft. Granted, if he's the only one seeing a problem he probably won't get far under a democratic system either.


True, I don't know much about these old sessions. The only thing I know about are the strange ideas of traps he apparently had. Well...

You do understand though, that even in the context of challenging players that you have to play by the rules to do so? Or else there was never even a challenge, or at least the challenge was never doing anything within the game. It was somehow getting the GM to let you pass.


D&D 3.5 is a more or less consistent system that tried to define mostly everything with detailed rules. That's... well, still not one of the major problems. The major problem is scale of numbers compared to scale of RNG. And rocket tag. It's borderline to a streamline combat engine, except not so streamlined, and it tries to hide a bit that it mainly deals with combat.

D&D 4 is a MMO®PG. It's a pretty pure combat engine, focused on action adventure, not suitable for the full gamut of roleplaying.


Oh, but one more time, because you said you were thinking more about theory:

Why do you need rules?
Why do you need a GM?
Would you need a GM if the rules were perfect? And perfect means that everything is resolved really quickly and with as much or little detail as you like. And if yes, then for what specific tasks?

Generally I would agree, indeed freeform roleplaying can be the most rewarding roleplaying experiences. In a strict sense, they shouldn't be called games, though, but rather given a name like cooperative storytelling.

Would you trust a player to wield it?

I'm not ignoring that in the least. I'm well aware of it. However, at that point it usually becomes painfully apparent to everyone that that guy is a dick, whereas by constant fiat he may appear to be completely impartial for a while, whereas he's in reality not.
Those aren't games, in a strict sense, but let's go with it for want of a better word. However, you can indeed play games like that, you just have to agree on it, first.
Obviously a borderline case. How often does this come up? Also, ANY game can have this, you simply have to put it in the rules.
Everythign can be ruined by power blocks. A GM-choice game could be ruined by the power-block of the players.

And yet more of reading things I haven't said.

Every single example you're posted so far has been a result of having a bad GM.

Every single one.

So far, every indication is that you are having a problem with bad GMs. That is why you feel the way you do.

Every single argument you have presented boils down to "But the GM might abuse his power."

That a problem with the GM, not with the system.

Good GMs take player input into account, and then make decisions tempered by that input. Good GMs are primarily concerned with whether their players are having fun, rather than trying to revel in their power. Good GMs aren't jerks.

It sounds like you don't get good GMs. Seriously.



-k

Hehe. That protestation gets funnier every time. "Guys, you *all* obviously don't speak English."

'm also the enjoying the "no true scotsman" fallacy (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

"Your rules don't work for this game"

- - "Well, that's not really a game."

"Your rules don't work for this game either"

- - "Well, that's not really a game, either."

"Your rules don't work for this game either"

- - "Well, of course, that's not really a game, either."

"And they don't allow for this to happen in a game."

"Your rules don't work for this game either"

- - "Well, if that's happening, that's not a game. But my way is better for ALL games."

Kaj ti pravis? Jaz govorim anglesko (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Edited: Nevermind. My brain is still frozen on "it (Paranoia) is not a game". There's nothing I can add at this point that isn't sarcastic and might, in any way, be productive.

The bully never won when we played make-believe in Kindergarten. The bully didn't play in our games. He went and hung out with his friends. Occasionally there would be a scuffle between the two groups.

The dick wasn't at our table. We didn't let him, and we trusted everyone at our table. He, the dick, went and had his own table. Arguments (it's not really a discussion anymore) like this happen at websites all over the place based on the experiences of the users involved.

This has never really happened at a table I've been at, but isn't there a roleplaying mode where only the GM even knows the rules? Players tell him what they do, and he translates. See last season of Community.

I'm not lost, the guy beating his head in on a brick wall screaming at it to break because logically it should might be. The fact that he has engendered ridicule and scorn from everyone in the discussion, might inform a person that perhaps their viewpoint or method of arguing might be faulty. Instead as I stated before it is all about the bad GM.



If it smells like shit, looks like shit, it probably is exactly that, shit. His examples ring of falsehood when compared to his behavior here, but I am sure none of us who would point this out are sensible, english speaking, or even exhibiting signs of sentience.



A Paranoia game with Canray would fun, but barring that I would almost rather chew on a .45 so I can get lead poisoning at least then I would have an excuse for not understanding english.

That is true. I've seen bad GM's railroad players into TPK's, I've also seen good GM's accidentally do the same, but usually they realize their mistake and make it so there isn't a TPK.

For rules, it is best to have the full set of rules as detailled as possible. But, when the question is an obscure/rare situation (such as: A ward on a moving vehicle (a subway train car) in a subway tunnel impacts a mage PC in the astral, what happens?) I am sure the rules are in there somewhere, but how often does it come up? Is it worth looking up?

GM Fiat is a valuable tool. It can be used to smooth over problems that arise in game play, to ensure fun. It should not be used in an arbitrary fashion. A GM who does use it that way is a Dick GM. And the problem there lies with the GM, not the Fiat.

Consensus rules also don't guarantee the best decisions. They only guarantee the most POPULAR decisions. Most popular does not always equal best.



-k

Word. You should try having to write with them. There's a whole raftload of organizational issues that I really wish could be taken care of, but until then, I have to live with them....

Sorry to derail this already derailed topic, but I just saw this and had to comment.

My experience is that they don't even guarantee popular decisions. They often end up going with the only decision that no one is willing to yell and scream and insult and ridicule everyone else over. I've watched entire teams* give into a decision only one of them supported because it was the only way to work with that one person who had to have it their way. Some people (see this thread) are unable to support a majority viewpoint when it's not their own.

I watched a perfectly good team dissolve because people simply got tired of the method by which consensus was reached. The fed up members eventually formed a different team without the people who caused issues and their productivity and success of decision making was noticeably higher, while their time to reach consensus was drastically cut.

----------

* I worked in a large flat office that grew to about 70 people over time. No management, no hierarchy. Some people who, by experience or persuasion tended to be listened to more and some who by inexperience or shyness had less of a voice, so it wasn't perfect, but it was a great experience.

-----------------------------------

I'm wondering how many GMs become dicks because they don't know how to uninvite players and therefore encourage the player to uninvite themselves.

No, seriously? This is gibberish. Irrelevant to the conversation.


We're coming back to empirics because the way you're discussing your playstyle keeps referring back to empirics. You keep saying, "this works! It works!" but you're not proving your statements. And it's frustrating.


No, you're disrespecting everyone here. In this thread. Right now. Reading this. By being stubborn and not listening and criticizing everyone's play styles.

No offense but - stop being stubborn and listen and you might learn something.: That GM-choice is the baseline, and everything goes on from there. Fact is - alright, let's rephrase that, since it was criticized - IN MY OPINION,


Now they do. Because you're backtracking.


And you're reported. I mean, seriously? This is relevant how?


Then why do you keep saying that there is?

The rest I'll get back to, because I'm going to hang out with horses.

Because screaming makes it so.

One of the best games I've ever been in did this....ah, memories....

Off-topic, but what happened on 27-February 02 ? I see that member ids jumped from 400-something to 1800-something...

Hi all, I'm Lurker and I'm an authoritarian GM (More on this Later)

I've been reading this thread and while I too join the consensus that gaming by consensus doesn't work. (I'm so clever.) I did want to examine a statement Brain had meant, mostly because he seems to make a tent stake of it as evidence by putting it in gigantic type.



I guess I need to ask when and where does this mythical before the playing session time occur. Fro example, in my group where currently I am presidente-for-life-big-cheese until someone else wants to take the big chair generally play starts as soon as i've walked in the door and got my stuff broken out and the group turns off whatever electronics they were amusing themselves with while I wait. Unfortunately due to a variety of issues, some simply personal time management failings I am usually the last to arrive. Sometimes game is held while everyone breaks into the food being served or having reached a consensus on what we're going to order as a group someone is sent to get stuff. No one wants to see me do a big piece of exposition or recaping with a mouthful of food. Similarly we have a facebook group where I try and keep people abreast of house rules or invite open discussion on ones that I'm feeling especially troubled by. I also try and proactively warn players who might be most affected by rules changes i'm making (mages with mind control spells for example). But that's really the sum total of the group pre-planning. Likewise our after sessions are usually those times after the folks who have to work or commute early in the morning leave until when the host (a second shifter) kicks us out. Now I do get a fair amount of rules feedback then, a couple weeks ago I had a home made electrical trap the opposition rigged up do a player 20 Stun, working on the reasoning that it was electrical but since the core of the track was a main power line (of the sort that kills people all to often) it should be the kind of damage that is instantly fatal to most of the population. One of the players after I gave (what I felt was) ample opportunity to know what was up decided to dare teh trap anyway. He was quite upset when he was stunned into unconciousness in one go and was essentially out of the fight. He ended up leaving early because of that, more then a little upset. The rest of the group called me on it and I saw the error of my ways, I apologized to the player next session and mentioned I should have handled the situation differently.

Anyway enough cool story bro the question i'm really asking is when do you find time for rules discussion that doesn't subtract from game time.

So you're gaming 24/7, and/or have no interaction with the friends you're playing with beyond the table? Not even through this neat little invention from a few years back called "the Internet" where you can communicate freely and easily with one another at your leisure?

Nah, your player was probably a baby. Unless he had reason to think he was immune to electricity. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

He knew there was a trap, knew it might kill his character, and stepped into it anyway?? I don't believe there was anything for you to apologize for.