IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Defining the role of the GM and the players, I want to continue this discussion here.
Paul
post Oct 6 2011, 10:51 AM
Post #1


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,001
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Michigan
Member No.: 1,514



QUOTE (Brainpiercing7.62mm @ Oct 5 2011, 08:44 PM) *
Ok, obviously you're not getting me: (so just one last time)

Scenario is GM territory. Obviously the GM decides what things happen in the world. He has full control over all of that, which obviously still means that while playing the game, his leverage is always greater. Still, whatever he does should all the while obey the rules and mechanics of the game (if not to the letter, then at least in spirit). (Which also means that he shouldn't prepare plot, because that often has problems, for instance sacrificing consistency for drama and stuff like that. Different topic again.)

Rules are GROUP territory. Rules and mechanics make interactions in the game world possible. They facilitate anything that happens in the game world, and they define and give structure (and limitations) to the overlapping spheres of influence of players (and their characters) and the GM. Therefore they must be transparent, obvious, understood and mutually agreed upon. You agree on a game and the available source material, and that defines the basis of the game you are playing. Any and all deviations from that basis, i.e. from the rules and mechanics of the game, must be put by the group, or else no further interaction is possible. If one guy just decides he'll do things differently, then the game falls apart - even if that guy is the GM. Because once the GM starts doing things differently, then I can no longer rely on the possible interactions within the game world (and certain metagame things, too). And even just giving him the possibility of changing things on the fly without prior notice or discussion is making these interactions impossible to gauge. Of course the GM also acts as mediator and moderator - but his weight in any given matter shouldn't be much greater than everyone else's. He might be the one to tip the scales, but he doesn't get to decide against all others involved.

So obviously this is all in theory, and in practice we generally have to compromise for all sorts of imperfections - laziness, lack of rules knowledge, time, etc., all of which blur the handle you can have on the game world. So... game rules should be a bit like the laws physics - you don't have to know all of them, but you can still rely on certain things working in certain ways. And gravity won't stop just because one guy says so. (Unless he's a wizard.)

That's all I'm saying, and no matter what game you are playing that simple division holds up. I'm not saying that the trust relationship is wrong, obviously you trust the GM to create a scenario that is fun for everyone, and in turn uphold the very important responsibility of a player to likewise ensure that everyone else can have fun, too.

And why do I think this method is better than the old "it's the GM's game, he gets final say on everything" method? Because that old one can cause all kinds of crap. Crap that doesn't happen once you understand that the GM is basically just a player - albeit with greater responsibilities. I'm not saying the other one can't work, it's just that mine works better in more cases. If the rule books of all the games out there were more clear on the matter (and sometimes less reactionary) then gaming would be more fun for a lot of people.

And ok, end of that OT.



From the original thread. I want to continue the discussion here, and will come back to ask some questions and make a few comments.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 24)
suoq
post Oct 6 2011, 11:27 AM
Post #2


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,272
Joined: 22-June 10
From: Omaha. NE
Member No.: 18,746



I'm not sure there's going to be a point to it. In the end, my gut feeling is that he's sitting at the "players" table* and many of the rest of us are sitting at the "GMs" table*, and that's why he feels as he does. He thinks his environment is universal.

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

*It's been my experience that, in places where gaming groups form, there is always this odd shortage of GMs. Eventually those people willing to GM, get sick of doing higher than average duty. This is especially true in a "Missions" type environment where, come convention time, the person who has been signing all of those log sheets can quickly look at the stack of "player" log sheet and his own pathetic stack of log sheets and say "to heck with this".

GMs want to play at tables with other GMs. For them, it's the ideal situation. They get to GM when they want and they get to play when they want, and they get log sheets and a good peer group.

Players tables don't have that luxury. They tend to suffer from a shortage of GMs and often feel the need to reign in the GMs they can get.

This isn't universal. Some groups are, and always will be, groups of friends. But I'll bet karma that if NumptyScrub ever has to move to another city, within a year he'll have found a GMs table to sit at.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dahrken
post Oct 6 2011, 11:45 AM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 583
Joined: 1-October 09
From: France
Member No.: 17,693



I feel like there are two seperate issues lumped together here.
- the first is "who should have the final say in rule interpretation, the GM or a table consensus"
- the second is rules consistency, everyone being on the same page (no matter who wrote that page)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brainpiercing7.6...
post Oct 6 2011, 01:13 PM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 16-September 10
Member No.: 19,052



Hehe....

Ok, I was also thinking about doing this, but I was reluctant because (as I have voiced before) the SR community generally takes an approach that is rather different from mine, and I didn't want to bring that uphill battle into its own thread, for the entire forum to take part in.

I can, if you wish, supply multiple reasons for why I hold this philosophy, and I can also tell you about the immediate benefits (and the lack of real downsides).

As food for thought, I give you this post by one of the most adamant (and annoying, I admit) proponents of what I consider mostly good gaming theory:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/in...hp?topic=3752.0

And something else:
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/in...hp?topic=3820.0

More later...

And suoq, currently I am GMing, and I do the same as GM.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KarmaInferno
post Oct 6 2011, 01:18 PM
Post #5


Old Man Jones
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,415
Joined: 26-February 02
From: New York
Member No.: 1,699



There is no right or wrong here, just different playing styles.

Traditional setup is GM Makes The Rules. Many tables go by this. It's worked since the 70s, it works today.

Other tables go by Group Consensus. I have found this occurs more often when you have more than one GM in the group, perhaps they rotate GMs or it's players that attend conventions where they GM some games and play others. People who GM regularly may feel they should have more input on rules even when they are a player.

It depends on what people you have at your table. That's all.



-k
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroShadow
post Oct 6 2011, 02:11 PM
Post #6


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 9-December 09
From: Europe
Member No.: 17,956



I disagree with OP.

Since the GM in effect creates the scenario and environment, then the fact that rules are group's territory is meaningless. In short, 'Wizard did it'.

In longer, see example: hacker wants to hack into node. GM says that he can't, because 'that organization has developed new kind of firewall, which cannot be hacked by your usual programs and need specific program "black hole". Player may ask if he can, and GM may say 'theoretically yes'. But that is left in GM's oversight.

I am not advocating GM vs. Player mentality, on the opposite I say that players and GM has to cooperate, because GM can de facto (if not de jure) ignore rules because he makes up the world as it goes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brainpiercing7.6...
post Oct 6 2011, 02:15 PM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 16-September 10
Member No.: 19,052



QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Oct 6 2011, 03:18 PM) *
There is no right or wrong here, just different playing styles.

Traditional setup is GM Makes The Rules. Many tables go by this. It's worked since the 70s, it works today.


You see, I disagree with that. It hasn't worked nearly as well as you say, and the fact that you say it's sort of "tried and true" doesn't mean anything, because it's a cop-out argument. Not everything that's been used for decades is good, because it can be a seriously bad habit.

So there is an objectively better method as soon as you have the following cases:

One method may work but also may cause huge problems
The other method can provide the same good results, but doesn't have these problems.

Which one is objectively better? Simply put, there is only one right answer to this. It's the method that provides the same results but doesn't cause problems.

Even in groups full of immature players that are a pain to GM my method will yield good results because a) asking people and giving them responsibility usually work or b) if they don't care, they don't care, and it doesn't matter either way.

You don't need to create a hierarchy at the gaming table, all you need to do is hand out roles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bustedkarma
post Oct 6 2011, 02:25 PM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 152
Joined: 29-March 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,420



It's a nature vs. nurture issues IMHO.

Some groups NEED to have the GM develop the plot for them. The players could be 1) New to the system 2) New to the game world 3) Unimaginative, or some combination of the 3.

Some groups only need an outline (Go steal McGuffin from Corp XYZ) and they are off to the races. They don't want guidance, unless they ask for it.

To me, it's not about which GM'ing style is correct, or even the correct definition of GM or Player, or what their rights and responsibilities entail. It's all about a sliding scale. Sometimes the GM has to do 70% of the work, sometimes he only has to do 30%. All depends on the group.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 6 2011, 02:28 PM
Post #9


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,001
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Michigan
Member No.: 1,514



QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Oct 6 2011, 08:18 AM) *
There is no right or wrong here, just different playing styles.


I can't stress this enough. There is no one true way, just how it is at your table.

My own group falls somewhere in the the spectrum between the two ends karma Inferno describes. When we make some one the GM, we entrust a lot of things to them. This includes what game we'll play; what rules we'll use; what books and resources are to be used-we had a player who ran a campaign where he didn't want people using the interwebs to look stuff up; and to an extent what characters you can play.

We're a pretty laid back group, and we have a long history together so we all know each other pretty well. We trust each other not to make dick moves. That said what BP762 describes is pretty extreme to me: GM Fiat is a tool, but not my only tool and not even one I use very often. In fact off the top of my head I can't recall the last time I just said "No, you can't do that." Had to be in high school, when we were just starting out.

Instead I'll pretty much let a player try anything. I had a player who played a sentient swarm of bugs in D&D. I had a player who played a Street Samurai who had six character sheets, one for each personality and changed through them with a die roll whenever he got into a stressful situation. (Including one personality that was violently opposed to the other players.) But yeah we have no interest in a free form game. To us that's kind of like jerking off. Sure it might seem fun every once in a while. But the real thing is better for us.

In the end we like a strong central GM as the arbitrator. Now if someone were to abuse their authority-and it's happened-we'll deal with it. We're pretty low key so it usually starts with "Hey you know I had fun, but next time...." In 20 plus years we've only had three people we just couldn't reason with.

I'd never try to just rail road my players because it's not fun for me or them, and eventually it'd lead to me not having players.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 6 2011, 02:30 PM
Post #10


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,001
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Michigan
Member No.: 1,514



QUOTE (Brainpiercing7.62mm @ Oct 6 2011, 09:15 AM) *
You see, I disagree with that. It hasn't worked nearly as well as you say, and the fact that you say it's sort of "tried and true" doesn't mean anything, because it's a cop-out argument. Not everything that's been used for decades is good, because it can be a seriously bad habit.

So there is an objectively better method as soon as you have the following cases:

One method may work but also may cause huge problems
The other method can provide the same good results, but doesn't have these problems.

Which one is objectively better? Simply put, there is only one right answer to this. It's the method that provides the same results but doesn't cause problems.

Even in groups full of immature players that are a pain to GM my method will yield good results because a) asking people and giving them responsibility usually work or b) if they don't care, they don't care, and it doesn't matter either way.

You don't need to create a hierarchy at the gaming table, all you need to do is hand out roles.


I think you're wrong, but we'll have to disagree. I know of no group that uses or advocates your method that has been successful, or has lasted more than a few sessions. I can literally name hundreds of players who've used the traditional method successfully for decades now.

I get you really want your argument to be superior, and you'll argue the semantics till your blue in the face-but I'm not going to be convinced or swayed. So I'll bow out with a I agree to disagree with you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shortstraw
post Oct 6 2011, 02:33 PM
Post #11


Running Target
***

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 1,003
Joined: 3-May 11
From: Brisbane Australia
Member No.: 29,391



I must side with Paul and Suoq. It's the golden rule of gaming - he who does the work makes the rules (or at least interprets them for the duration of the mission/adventure/whatever [although it is also his responsibility to clarify ambiguous points before play actually starts and not punish people the first time something unexpected comes up]).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brainpiercing7.6...
post Oct 6 2011, 02:33 PM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 16-September 10
Member No.: 19,052



QUOTE (EuroShadow @ Oct 6 2011, 04:11 PM) *
I disagree with OP.

Since the GM in effect creates the scenario and environment, then the fact that rules are group's territory is meaningless. In short, 'Wizard did it'.

In longer, see example: hacker wants to hack into node. GM says that he can't, because 'that organization has developed new kind of firewall, which cannot be hacked by your usual programs and need specific program "black hole". Player may ask if he can, and GM may say 'theoretically yes'. But that is left in GM's oversight.

I am not advocating GM vs. Player mentality, on the opposite I say that players and GM has to cooperate, because GM can de facto (if not de jure) ignore rules because he makes up the world as it goes.


And you see that's wrong.

The GM CAN add new content to the game, BUT SO CAN A PLAYER! A player's content will be put before the group and gauged and judged, and finally approved or disapproved by consensus. The GM adds content based on the trust that he's centering his scenario around it, and obviously revealing all the little details would destroy the scenario. But factually, once that's over, it's fully within the right of the players to say: Hey, it's all good and well, but if you're adding stuff that we can't get by default, and which makes us lose by default, then that's clearly a breach of that trust, and that's a no-go.

However, what you seem to be bringing in is just a plot hole lazily fixed. The GM wants an unhackable node, and instead of working within the rules, you are saying it's fine to bring in fiat that says "you can't". Which is just plain bad GMing. OR what you are doing is just adding stuff to create an unhackable node NOW, and then shifting the problem back to where you were before, except you now have another program to deal with, adding complexity without long-term gain. . You might as well have just upped the numbers and worked with the degradation mechanics in the game itself to adjust them back into place after the run.

The GM makes the world, but if he can't agree on the same rules and mechanics as the group, then people are simply playing a different game, and no fun will be had with that, unless you like being spoon-fed little scraps of bullshit. Games WORK because everyone is on the same page, and everyone is following the rules, because you now have a functioning interactive game world. Get rid of that, and you are firmly in fiat-land, which is a place I just don't want to be.

And seriously, I don't get what people are defending, here: I think they are defending their accustomed "rights" as GM to do as they please. Which is just plain defending a hierarchy that shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
suoq
post Oct 6 2011, 02:34 PM
Post #13


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,272
Joined: 22-June 10
From: Omaha. NE
Member No.: 18,746



QUOTE (Brainpiercing7.62mm @ Oct 6 2011, 08:15 AM) *
The other method can provide the same good results, but doesn't have these problems.

As stated in the other thread, your method cannot produce the same results.

Your method requires everything be agreed to and transparent. This means that players can not, as I understand your method, discover new things about the game world in play. I, personally, like discovering new things. I like, in a RPG, not knowing all the rules, all the items, all the spells, all the creatures. I like discovery and your method gets in the way of that.

So far, all your arguments against the GM having final say have basically been "But that fails when the GM is a dick.". The big hint here is ANYTHING fails when one person at the table insists on being a dick. It doesn't matter what game you're playing or how you arbitrate when the table has to deal with someone who is a dick. The problem is not the methodology, the problem is that one player. Once you get rid of them, you don't need a methodology to protect yourself from them.

If you have to play with the kind of people your methodology is designed to protect you from, then for your situation, it's probably a better methodology, but once you leave that situation, as comforting as that methodology is for you, it doesn't mean it's an objectively better methodology. It just means it's the one designed to protect you from your fears and you're comfortable with it.

I feel for you. I really do. And I realize you've probably had some really lousy people at your tables over the years, but in preventing someone from doing something stupid, what you're really doing is preventing them from doing something. And I, personally, like to allow them to do those somethings, because sometimes they're really smart, special, and unique.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 6 2011, 02:36 PM
Post #14


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,001
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Michigan
Member No.: 1,514



Well I always picture these threads as a conversation taking place around the table, with some cold drinks and maybe some appetizers. So I don't see it as being defensive, but rather just happening to disagree with your point of view. I don't think you're wrong bad or something like that, I just happen to disagree. The good news is we're not forced to sit at the same table and play, so it's not like we're arguing over who get's the last piece of game out there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 6 2011, 02:36 PM
Post #15


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,001
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Michigan
Member No.: 1,514



And I don't disagree with everything you say, I guess I should say that. I think you're absolutely right that anyone can bring the game to a halt. I've had it happen dozens of times.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brainpiercing7.6...
post Oct 6 2011, 02:37 PM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 16-September 10
Member No.: 19,052



QUOTE (Paul @ Oct 6 2011, 04:30 PM) *
I know of no group that uses or advocates your method that has been successful, or has lasted more than a few sessions. I can literally name hundreds of players who've used the traditional method successfully for decades now.

You see, I don't believe you've tried at all, nor do you know any groups like that. You are arguing without basis.
QUOTE
I get you really want your argument to be superior, and you'll argue the semantics till your blue in the face-but I'm not going to be convinced or swayed. So I'll bow out with a I agree to disagree with you.

And I see that you are busy defending your GM chair that is in danger of being reduced in altitude a bit. I don't need to want my argument to be superior, because I already know it, but you don't, apparently.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 6 2011, 02:39 PM
Post #17


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,001
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Michigan
Member No.: 1,514



QUOTE (Brainpiercing7.62mm @ Oct 6 2011, 09:37 AM) *
You see, I don't believe you've tried at all, nor do you know any groups like that. You are arguing without basis.


tried what? A free flow game? I've sat in on a few, but they were so disorganized and shoddy that you're correct I've never tried it. Nothing is broken, so there's no need to fix it.

QUOTE
And I see that you are busy defending your GM chair that is in danger of being reduced in altitude a bit. I don't need to want my argument to be superior, because I already know it, but you don't, apparently.



Heh. I don't need to make this an internet dick swinging contest. I disagree with you, and part of your position, but I don't need to insult you. I don't even know you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brainpiercing7.6...
post Oct 6 2011, 02:57 PM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 16-September 10
Member No.: 19,052



QUOTE (Paul @ Oct 6 2011, 04:39 PM) *
tried what? A free flow game? I've sat in on a few, but they were so disorganized and shoddy that you're correct I've never tried it. Nothing is broken, so there's no need to fix it.

I'm not talking about any free flow or other play style, I'm talking about games with transparent rules, working mechanics and no fiat.

QUOTE
Heh. I don't need to make this an internet dick swinging contest. I disagree with you, and part of your position, but I don't need to insult you. I don't even know you.

Well... ok, I perceived you trying to do so.


Just please tell me one logical argument why this so-called rule 0 (to which it all boils down to) should stay in any game? Logical, mind you, not "it's worked for years". Railroading has worked for years, but still the perception is slowly coming around that it makes for shoddy gaming. Likewise, authoritative GMing.

QUOTE (suoq @ Oct 6 2011, 04:34 PM) *
As stated in the other thread, your method cannot produce the same results.

Your method requires everything be agreed to and transparent. This means that players can not, as I understand your method, discover new things about the game world in play. I, personally, like discovering new things. I like, in a RPG, not knowing all the rules, all the items, all the spells, all the creatures. I like discovery and your method gets in the way of that.

The players can still choose to trust the GM to provide new content. But once that content has been introduced (and it may have been the Mcguffin or even the mary sue for a while), at some point it should become transparent - not to IC knowledge, maybe, but to ooc knowledge.

QUOTE
So far, all your arguments against the GM having final say have basically been "But that fails when the GM is a dick.". The big hint here is ANYTHING fails when one person at the table insists on being a dick. It doesn't matter what game you're playing or how you arbitrate when the table has to deal with someone who is a dick. The problem is not the methodology, the problem is that one player. Once you get rid of them, you don't need a methodology to protect yourself from them.

To me the GM starts being a dick when he keeps demanding his authoritative position. You see, and at that point the game is already dead. So when I think about setting up or joining a group I'll tell everyone my views, and if they can't deal with it, I'll walk away, or kindly ask them to do so. My method doesn't protect me from that. But if democratic (or at least more democratic) gaming were more widely accepted, then I would need to walk from fewer games.

QUOTE
If you have to play with the kind of people your methodology is designed to protect you from, then for your situation, it's probably a better methodology, but once you leave that situation, as comforting as that methodology is for you, it doesn't mean it's an objectively better methodology. It just means it's the one designed to protect you from your fears and you're comfortable with it.


These people I have gamed with in the past were not universally dicks, they were just bad GMs, and all of us were a little stupid and needy. So, the fault lies with everyone. But, again, if my philosophy were more widely accepted, we would not have run into these problems, because they would not have arisen in the first place.

QUOTE (Shortstraw @ Oct 6 2011, 04:33 PM) *
I must side with Paul and Suoq. It's the golden rule of gaming - he who does the work makes the rules (or at least interprets them for the duration of the mission/adventure/whatever [although it is also his responsibility to clarify ambiguous points before play actually starts and not punish people the first time something unexpected comes up]).

That is all true if you make these things clear prior to even starting. But once I've JOINED a group, I want my say in all further changes to the common ground.


Again, I have the feeling I want to - as a player - contest the results of conflict resolution within the game. I don't! I want, as a player, to KNOW what the rules are, or at least have a chance at knowing, without the rules suddenly changing.

If there is uncertainty in a certain point, the GM can make an immediate ruling to keep the flow up, but afterwards the uncertainties must be cleared up by the group as a whole.

And finally, I want my games without fiat, because fiat is the worst kind of conflict resolution there is, since it all boils down to saying yes or no at a whim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Oct 6 2011, 03:10 PM
Post #19


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



As before, this crap about 'altitude' is irrelevant and unhelpful. The issue of personal importance is a totally separate social issue from the theory of 'fully democratic' versus 'GM final choice'. These anecdotal arguments are also unhelpful, for a different, obvious reason. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

So, let's reconsider:
• The GM is a player. The GM is not 'just' a player. As others have said, he does more work.
• He arbitrates the game, which inextricably combines rules and scenario. You can't just wave off everything as 'well, that's scenario territory'.
• As a given, the good GM accepts input from the players.
• Players suck, and disagree, and what if the vote is tied? Fiat is totally unavoidable.
• The final vote is always not playing; for the GM or players.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 6 2011, 03:20 PM
Post #20


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,001
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Michigan
Member No.: 1,514



QUOTE (Brainpiercing7.62mm @ Oct 6 2011, 10:57 AM) *
I'm not talking about any free flow or other play style, I'm talking about games with transparent rules, working mechanics and no fiat.


Then we're talking past each other, because with one exception I am discussing the same thing. The only part I even marginally disagree with you about is GM Fiat, which I do believe is a right I can reserve as a GM. It's not one I exercise often, or even want to exercise often.

I am gld we can agree that LARP sucks! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

QUOTE
Well... ok, I perceived you trying to do so.


I'm not the gaming police. I'm not going to come to your house and kick the door in! What you do at your own table is your own business, this thread is a way for me to compare notes. I may not adopt everything you do, but if I find something worth adopting damn straight I'll use it.

QUOTE
Just please tell me one logical argument why this so-called rule 0 (to which it all boils down to) should stay in any game? Logical, mind you, not "it's worked for years". Railroading has worked for years, but still the perception is slowly coming around that it makes for shoddy gaming. Likewise, authoritative GMing.


Well since you seem to believe that "it works" is an invalid argument, I'm not sure I have a logical argument for it. And I'm not sure that matters. For what it's worth, I do see "it works" as a logical argument-but I think we have a disconnect here. You seem to automatically equate Fiat with railroading, and that isn't how I see it at all.

And luckily I don't have anyone at my table demanding your brand of logic. (When I asked them about this they all agreed you seem way too keyed up about this, and they reminded me that the revolution has better things to do than my game!)

To me the GM Fiat is more than just a hissy fit, thrown when you don't get your way, which given what you've posted is kind of how I think you see it. (And correct me if I'm wrong, I'm only inferring your position-and I don't have the benefit of sitting across from you to pick up on the subtle nonverbal cues we'd have in a real life conversation.)

I see GM Fiat as the agreement between players and the GM that when, and if it comes down to a final ruling the GM makes a call. This call is not unassailable. It can be discussed, but for me GM Fiat is something you use while in play. It's not a tool you use when the game is over. That's just a dick move.

QUOTE
The players can still choose to trust the GM to provide new content. But once that content has been introduced (and it may have been the Mcguffin or even the mary sue for a while), at some point it should become transparent - not to IC knowledge, maybe, but to ooc knowledge.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Could you clarify?

QUOTE
To me the GM starts being a dick when he keeps demanding his authoritative position.


I can dig that. My authority comes from the compact we've all agreed upon, not because I pressed my group or they have no choice.


QUOTE
But, again, if my philosophy were more widely accepted, we would not have run into these problems, because they would not have arisen in the first place.


I think that makes a lot of assumptions, many of which I don't think are true. But who knows? If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle right?

QUOTE
That is all true if you make these things clear prior to even starting. But once I've JOINED a group, I want my say in all further changes to the common ground.


I don't think that's an unreasonable way of doing it. It's how I do it.


QUOTE
If there is uncertainty in a certain point, the GM can make an immediate ruling to keep the flow up, but afterwards the uncertainties must be cleared up by the group as a whole.


I agree. This is how we do it.

QUOTE
And finally, I want my games without fiat, because fiat is the worst kind of conflict resolution there is, since it all boils down to saying yes or no at a whim.


I agree that Fiat can suck. I don't like to use it for that very reason. But I do think that if it comes down to it, I would reserve the right to use it. My players get that, and accept it. Otherwise they wouldn't show up at the table. When they run a game, I accept that they have their own rules.

This has been an interesting discussion. I appreciate everyone's participation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Oct 6 2011, 03:25 PM
Post #21


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



What's bothering me is the characterization of 'GM not equal' as 'GM is a TOTAL dick, all the time, OMG, and he gets off on it'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 6 2011, 03:29 PM
Post #22


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,001
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Michigan
Member No.: 1,514



I agree, that is problematic. I'd like to think I'm just your average cat, not some lunatic. But then after going to GenCon and meeting a lot of gamers who really consider themselves gamers I realize my group seems to be an exception not the rule.

There's a lot of wonky stuff out there. I'm saddened by anyone who automatically assumes I'm some power hungry piss ant who get's revenge for life by mutilating cattle. Honestly I just mutilate them because it's fun. Plus have you seen how they dress? Clearly they were asking for it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Oct 6 2011, 03:34 PM
Post #23


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



In regards to GM fiat, I'm just going to quote the main sourcebook real quick. SR4A, p. 60, "Game Concepts." Emphasis is mine, of course.

QUOTE
Above all, the rules are here to facilitate telling good stories. Don’t get bogged down in rules disputes when it’s important to keep the plot moving, just fudge it and move on. Don’t allow powergaming to run out of control, but don’t let an unexpected death or glitch derail the plot either. If you know in advance that a certain outcome would be more dramatic or amusing than what you are likely to roll, then don’t bother to roll. When the rules get in the way of the story, ignore the rules and tell the story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brainpiercing7.6...
post Oct 6 2011, 03:44 PM
Post #24


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 16-September 10
Member No.: 19,052



QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Oct 6 2011, 05:10 PM) *
As before, this crap about 'altitude' is irrelevant and unhelpful. The issue of personal importance is a totally separate social issue from the theory of 'fully democratic' versus 'GM final choice'. These anecdotal arguments are also unhelpful, for a different, obvious reason. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yes... However, if rulesets didn't give people a notion that they were more important then the issue would arise less often.
QUOTE
So, let's reconsider:
• The GM is a player. The GM is not 'just' a player. As others have said, he does more work.

And I agree, for that I tend to say he gets the tipping vote, and can decide on stuff during the concept stage of the game - because you obviously can't force a person to GM something he doesn't like. However, usually GMs actually WANT to GM, so they also like putting in those extra hours to prepare stuff. I certainly do. Obviously that gets better if things turn out well and I'm successful in my endeavours.
QUOTE
• He arbitrates the game, which inextricably combines rules and scenario. You can't just wave off everything as 'well, that's scenario territory'.

He wouldn't need to, if the rules provided adequate resolution mechanics for all situations. In those where they don't, he directly suggests a house rule which is later discussed and then formalized. Sometimes you might not need a rule, you just need to decide what to roll, and it should be of little enough importance to do that on the fly.

At the basis of the game there are the rules and mechanics which determine how things work. Then comes scenario. Then come NPC and PC actions and so forth, and all the interactions are governed by conflict resolution (at least when contested). Fiat only happens when the rules are inadequate, AND any kind of fiat should come as an immediate, transparent house rule.

Generally in my group if I run across a problem like that I'll say: Alright, we don't have or don't know a rule for this, so I'll just propose we do it like so and so, is that ok with you guys? Then the players can say "ok", or "I'd rather have this and that".
As long as there is a general consensus that no prolonged discussion will happen during the session nothing goes wrong that way. Then afterwards or prior to the next game session we can discuss those problems again.

For instance the session before last the crappy vehicle combat/ vehicle passenger damage rules came up (the full-auto issue). I told the players: Alright, I'll just go ahead and show you what happens with the RAW as it is, using some inconsequential set pieces. And then I pretty quickly got suggestions for house rules which were then agree upon.

QUOTE
• As a given, the good GM accepts input from the players.

certainly no arguments here (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .
QUOTE
• Players suck, and disagree, and what if the vote is tied? Fiat is totally unavoidable.

Fiat is conflict resolution via GM whim, which isn't what I'm talking about right now. If the vote is tied the GM gets the tipping vote.
QUOTE
• The final vote is always not playing; for the GM or players.

Ideal rulesets make this chance minimal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wiseman
post Oct 6 2011, 03:52 PM
Post #25


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 324
Joined: 18-July 06
From: Charleston, SC
Member No.: 8,911



Adjudication and feedback from players is an important part of GM'ing, definitely. But, putting everything to a vote and letting majority rule is ridiculous, the GM isn't just a puppet there to talk and roll dice for the opposition.

The GM sets the pace, tone, and balance of the entire game, and should be the MOST impartial person at the table. After all, a GM isn't arguing something for personal benefit, and remains the only person seated at the table without a direct reward (incentive) for any given ruling to go a certain way.

Therefore, the GM should always have final say, and if that judgement isn't respected, sit at another table.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th July 2025 - 02:52 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.