Rules Lawyers vs. GMs, Players correcting the GM Options

[Daylen]

Because you forgot the first two words of that ROLE PLAYING Game. If you are worried only about the game part, there are plenty of FPSes out there that handle that aspect much better than a PnP can.
Without the context of the story a role playing game is what, a group of people rolling dice to see who shot the other first?

I must disagree. I find such games clunky and annoying. PnP rpgs with well written backgrounds and rules work far better on a multitude of areas.

And just in case anyone is curious I have complained and resisted a dm cheating on my behalf to keep my char alive before. I take rules to be just that rules not just a guideline for how to write down numbers and letters on a page that become meaningless because they are ignored when everything doesn't work perfectly in someones mind.

[Daylen]

Perhaps I should clarify my point.

While designing a shadowrun, I put in a physical security system designed to slow the players down so that security could respond and catch them in the act.

When the players actually ran on the facility, the system proved to be MUCH more deadly than I originally thought... to the point where characters would die messily, bad feelings would be generated between the players and GM (You sir, are being a dick GM!), and play would stop if I didn't change SOMETHING.

All because of something that didn't play in practice like it had in my head or in the limited trials I ran while troubleshooting the scenario.

So, I have three options.

1. Ignore the problem, let the players roll with the punches, and loudly proclaim my innocence in the ensuing argument with cries of "but that's how the dice fell!"

2. Change what security is actually at the place, ruining the descriptions I already worked out, and basically trashing all my head-work earlier in setting up the run.

3. Fudge a few rolls, so that the traps in the security system work the way they did in my head, and delay rather than kill people.

I have tried all three of these methods before. Honestly, method three works the best at my table. Method 1 generally ends the session, (and once, the campaign). Method 2 generally causes a three to ten minute delay in the game as I rework things and look stuff up (or attempt to pull something entirely new out of my nether regions). Method three keeps the game going, and keeps the difficulty "as advertized" by their fixer/footwork. So that's what I tend to use when I've already screwed up.

Not saying it's a perfect solution, but it's an instance of "cheating" that I view as generally beneficial to the game.

I'd have gone with a mixture of 1 and 2. In the past when I screw up and make things stupid difficult and players drop like flies, those are the sessions that the players talk about the most and are retold like Epics.
http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0038.html

[Yerameyahu]

Nice. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If you're so bored that you're baiting the Disneytroll, go run a PbP. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Heheheh... Awesome! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I would say that I am surprised that you cannot see a difference between an RPG and a CCG but I would be dishonest.
An open ended series of M:tG matches is about winning.
Here let me say that again. It is about winning, you know that whole concept of winning and competitiveness and winning.

I don't know about that... I played Magic the Gathering for a very long time (and invested way to much money into the game, sadly)... and you know something, it was never about the winning for me... it was about the comraderie between friends and the construction of interesting decks to play with (Something I continuously did... must have constructed thousands of decks over the years)... not every game need be about winning... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Glyph]

I don't like GM fudging, myself. I would rather know that the big bad died because I planned for the hit, or rolled really well, rather than because it was time for his dramatic death scene.

To be honest, I wouldn't have that much of a problem with a GM fudging to save the game, because he messed something up - sometimes you can mess things up when you set up an encounter, and Shadowrun is an extremely lethal game. What I dislike is when GMs fudge to save their story. At that point, it really does become the GM reading you a novel. I like the rules not only for the ability to quantify what my character does, like Wounded Ronin mentioned, but also for the genuinely random element that the dice introduce.

Even that, though, comes down to personal preference. I may not prefer that style of play, but some players actually do like storytelling GMs. I think that's fine, as long as the GM is upfront with it and the players are all cool with it.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Yeah... GM fudging does tend to irritate me a lot.

I tend to design my characters for a certain adherence to the rules, both by me and my group. When I have certain bonuses that enable me to perform a given task, it really irks me when the GM decides that he does not like that for his scenario, and then completely ignores the modifiers because he thinks that this makes it more exciting for me... If I wanted to have modifiers completely ignored, I would not utilize them in the first place...

Pisses me off actually... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Sorry... Rant Over... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

[toturi]

To be honest, I wouldn't have that much of a problem with a GM fudging to save the game, because he messed something up - sometimes you can mess things up when you set up an encounter, and Shadowrun is an extremely lethal game. What I dislike is when GMs fudge to save their story. At that point, it really does become the GM reading you a novel. I like the rules not only for the ability to quantify what my character does, like Wounded Ronin mentioned, but also for the genuinely random element that the dice introduce.

I agree. But the point is sometimes the GM cannot see the difference between his story and the game that we share.

[Ravennus]

I don't like GM fudging, myself. I would rather know that the big bad died because I planned for the hit, or rolled really well, rather than because it was time for his dramatic death scene.

To be honest, I wouldn't have that much of a problem with a GM fudging to save the game, because he messed something up - sometimes you can mess things up when you set up an encounter, and Shadowrun is an extremely lethal game. What I dislike is when GMs fudge to save their story. At that point, it really does become the GM reading you a novel. I like the rules not only for the ability to quantify what my character does, like Wounded Ronin mentioned, but also for the genuinely random element that the dice introduce.

Even that, though, comes down to personal preference. I may not prefer that style of play, but some players actually do like storytelling GMs. I think that's fine, as long as the GM is upfront with it and the players are all cool with it.

This... for me, exactly this.

I've had the unfortunate experience to play in a campaign a long time ago where the GM not only fudged rolls, but completely cheated and went against the rules in almost every way possible just so that his 'story' worked out exactly like he planned. The other players and their characters were largely irrelevant to his epic wank-fest story; so much so that he had his own personal GMPCs that always showed up to save our asses.

Personally, I would rather die from a bad die roll than feel like nothing I did ever mattered and that there weren't any rules in the game.
I know this is personal preference... but I approach PnP RPGs like any other non-freeform game that relies on rules. If someone cheated at a card game, everyone else would get pissed off. I react the same way when it comes to RPGs... otherwise, what's the point of any rules at all? Let's all just play Shadowrun Improv! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Just lik Glyph stated, I agree it comes down to personal preference.... but for me, I'll never continue playing a game when I realize that the GM doesn't care about the rules. If HE screwed up on something on creating an encounter and has to fix his mistakes, then so be it. Heck, it's one of the reasons why I actually PREFER published adventure material.... at least it should have been playtested more thoroughly.
But when I find out a GM is some control freak and cheats the rules so he can 'win' against the players or advance his own personal EPIC story (which nobody else gives two shits about), then I am OUT OUT OUT.


Sorry for the rant... I've been lurking this topic for a while now, and it just kind of burst out. >.<

[Wounded Ronin]

Perhaps I should clarify my point.

While designing a shadowrun, I put in a physical security system designed to slow the players down so that security could respond and catch them in the act.

When the players actually ran on the facility, the system proved to be MUCH more deadly than I originally thought... to the point where characters would die messily, bad feelings would be generated between the players and GM (You sir, are being a dick GM!), and play would stop if I didn't change SOMETHING.

All because of something that didn't play in practice like it had in my head or in the limited trials I ran while troubleshooting the scenario.

So, I have three options.

1. Ignore the problem, let the players roll with the punches, and loudly proclaim my innocence in the ensuing argument with cries of "but that's how the dice fell!"

2. Change what security is actually at the place, ruining the descriptions I already worked out, and basically trashing all my head-work earlier in setting up the run.

3. Fudge a few rolls, so that the traps in the security system work the way they did in my head, and delay rather than kill people.

I have tried all three of these methods before. Honestly, method three works the best at my table. Method 1 generally ends the session, (and once, the campaign). Method 2 generally causes a three to ten minute delay in the game as I rework things and look stuff up (or attempt to pull something entirely new out of my nether regions). Method three keeps the game going, and keeps the difficulty "as advertized" by their fixer/footwork. So that's what I tend to use when I've already screwed up.

Not saying it's a perfect solution, but it's an instance of "cheating" that I view as generally beneficial to the game.

In my opinion the problem was that as the GM you tried to get a very precise and fine line outcome from the opposition, ie specifically slowing the players down just so. So the real issue was the finesse with which the scenario was supposed to run.

IMO the way to go is to design opposition without specifically considering the PCs or a specific outcome. Instead, IMO the right thing to do is design an opposition that seems realistic or reasonable given the facility or what have you. It might be too much for the PCs but it's up to them to recon and find that out and create an appropriate plan. It's all about planning and tactics and therein lies the game.

A team of runners is basically a freelance special forces team. In real life you wouldn't expect a special forces team to wander willy nilly through all their missions and have everything be some finely balanced Goldilocks scenario. You would expect them to attempt their mission objectives but also gauge the situation, consider emergency extractions if necessary, possibly abort or modify certain aspects of the mission depending on circumstances, etc.

Did you ever play the original Operation Flashpoint Cold War Crisis? Some of the sweetest feelings of accomplishment I ever got from video games was merely surviving some of the crazy scenarios, but managing to get a big body count as well on the statistics screen afterwards. But that all comes down to tactics and judgement, not assured success or big plot wagon. It is something special that only happens when meticulous tactics and unrelenting focus combine with overwhelming opposition/targets.

[Wounded Ronin]

Is the statistical outcome the game?
Is it the act of playing the game?

Is making a 'legally broken character" breaking the integrity of the game?

The act of playing the game encompasses the gaming group generating the statistical outcomes.

A legally broken character isn't technically breaking the integrity of the game but perhaps the rules would benefit from some errata or a new edition. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[toturi]

A team of runners is basically a freelance special forces team. In real life you wouldn't expect a special forces team to wander willy nilly through all their missions and have everything be some finely balanced Goldilocks scenario. You would expect them to attempt their mission objectives but also gauge the situation, consider emergency extractions if necessary, possibly abort or modify certain aspects of the mission depending on circumstances, etc.

I have rarely encountered a GM that actually plans for the mission to be aborted or gives exp/karma because a mission was aborted. I have rarely played in any group that thinks walking away from a mission is a good thing - "the GM gave us this scenario, we should be able to overcome it".

[Piersdrach]

This... for me, exactly this.

I've had the unfortunate experience to play in a campaign a long time ago where the GM not only fudged rolls, but completely cheated and went against the rules in almost every way possible just so that his 'story' worked out exactly like he planned. The other players and their characters were largely irrelevant to his epic wank-fest story; so much so that he had his own personal GMPCs that always showed up to save our asses.

Personally, I would rather die from a bad die roll than feel like nothing I did ever mattered and that there weren't any rules in the game.
I know this is personal preference... but I approach PnP RPGs like any other non-freeform game that relies on rules. If someone cheated at a card game, everyone else would get pissed off. I react the same way when it comes to RPGs... otherwise, what's the point of any rules at all? Let's all just play Shadowrun Improv! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Just lik Glyph stated, I agree it comes down to personal preference.... but for me, I'll never continue playing a game when I realize that the GM doesn't care about the rules. If HE screwed up on something on creating an encounter and has to fix his mistakes, then so be it. Heck, it's one of the reasons why I actually PREFER published adventure material.... at least it should have been playtested more thoroughly.
But when I find out a GM is some control freak and cheats the rules so he can 'win' against the players or advance his own personal EPIC story (which nobody else gives two shits about), then I am OUT OUT OUT.


Sorry for the rant... I've been lurking this topic for a while now, and it just kind of burst out. >.<

No one gives two shits about the story? Why the hell are you there for in the first place? To test out your rules knowledge? To see if your build works like it was supposed to? I'm flabbergasted at the concept that story means zilch and rules means all.

Hell I've run whole campaigns were every die roll I rolled was purely for show and just made up the results. Any decent GM can do that and give the group a great session. It is not hard by any means.

I do like the hyperbole of it's either all rules all the time or Improv theatre. Here I thought that was a phenomenon of the D&D forums. I guess it's not.

[Yerameyahu]

Ditto, toturi. It *could* be good story, but it's important to remember that the game is what the group wants. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Piersdrach, maybe it's to have fun playing a game? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Piersdrach]

In my opinion the problem was that as the GM you tried to get a very precise and fine line outcome from the opposition, ie specifically slowing the players down just so. So the real issue was the finesse with which the scenario was supposed to run.

IMO the way to go is to design opposition without specifically considering the PCs or a specific outcome. Instead, IMO the right thing to do is design an opposition that seems realistic or reasonable given the facility or what have you. It might be too much for the PCs but it's up to them to recon and find that out and create an appropriate plan. It's all about planning and tactics and therein lies the game.

A team of runners is basically a freelance special forces team. In real life you wouldn't expect a special forces team to wander willy nilly through all their missions and have everything be some finely balanced Goldilocks scenario. You would expect them to attempt their mission objectives but also gauge the situation, consider emergency extractions if necessary, possibly abort or modify certain aspects of the mission depending on circumstances, etc.

Did you ever play the original Operation Flashpoint Cold War Crisis? Some of the sweetest feelings of accomplishment I ever got from video games was merely surviving some of the crazy scenarios, but managing to get a big body count as well on the statistics screen afterwards. But that all comes down to tactics and judgement, not assured success or big plot wagon. It is something special that only happens when meticulous tactics and unrelenting focus combine with overwhelming opposition/targets.

So the game is strategic planning followed up by clever use of statistical probabilities to execute that strategy in tactical ways?
Here I thought we were playing a roleplaying game not Squad Leader.

The act of playing the game encompasses the gaming group generating the statistical outcomes.

A legally broken character isn't technically breaking the integrity of the game but perhaps the rules would benefit from some errata or a new edition. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Here I thought the act of playing the game encompasses the group interacting with the story using dice at major points to enhance that story being told.

[Yerameyahu]

Squad Leader is why Shadowrun is so much fun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Here you were wrong.

[Wounded Ronin]

Because you forgot the first two words of that ROLE PLAYING Game. If you are worried only about the game part, there are plenty of FPSes out there that handle that aspect much better than a PnP can.
Without the context of the story a role playing game is what, a group of people rolling dice to see who shot the other first?

Did you ever play the old Rainbow Six games? You had brutal, unforgiving, and realistic combat and instant PC death, but you also had scenario context and detailed backstory on each character.

Therein lies the tragedy, catharsis, and realism. Every person has tremendous potential in their life and it is possible to be skilled, heroic, and seasoned, BUT the laws of physics don't re roll for anyone and even a veritable hero can be randomly or stupidly killed in a chaotic firefight.

A combat hero is a hero because in the long run chance favors no man and because combat is dangerous, crippling and deadly. If it were safe and there were re rolls for famous people it would be totally different.

An aggrandizing fantasy with statistical window dressing is not moving or cathartic. Your character can't truly be a combat hero unless there is an impartial element of risk or maiming.

In a crazy firefight even the best of the best are at great risk. I recommend "We Were Soldiers Once And Young" as an amazing Vietnam history that really highlights this.

A true great and tragic story may arise from the characters if you let the dice fall where they may, and seasoned veterans will probably minimize combat because they know their luck will run out one day.

The best and most amazing combat stories are the ones that aren't planned.

[Wounded Ronin]

No one gives two shits about the story? Why the hell are you there for in the first place? To test out your rules knowledge? To see if your build works like it was supposed to? I'm flabbergasted at the concept that story means zilch and rules means all.

Hell I've run whole campaigns were every die roll I rolled was purely for show and just made up the results. Any decent GM can do that and give the group a great session. It is not hard by any means.

I do like the hyperbole of it's either all rules all the time or Improv theatre. Here I thought that was a phenomenon of the D&D forums. I guess it's not.

Eh, most peoples' made up stories suck, IMO. Things tend to wrap up too neatly and be too pat. Truth is stranger than fiction and part of that is the mockery of randomness and chance re our best laid plans and most cherished ideologies.

[Wounded Ronin]

I have rarely encountered a GM that actually plans for the mission to be aborted or gives exp/karma because a mission was aborted. I have rarely played in any group that thinks walking away from a mission is a good thing - "the GM gave us this scenario, we should be able to overcome it".

LOL, one time the team outright rejected my planned mission and so the session was about them all going to the bar. I had to make it up as we went along. They saw a pimp beating a prostitute and acted in character. Yes, the pimp had "realistic" stats. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I remember one guy telling me afterwards he had a lot of fun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Piersdrach]

Did you ever play the old Rainbow Six games? You had brutal, unforgiving, and realistic combat and instant PC death, but you also had scenario context and detailed backstory on each character.

Therein lies the tragedy, catharsis, and realism. Every person has tremendous potential in their life and it is possible to be skilled, heroic, and seasoned, BUT the laws of physics don't re roll for anyone and even a veritable hero can be randomly or stupidly killed in a chaotic firefight.

A combat hero is a hero because in the long run chance favors no man and because combat is dangerous, crippling and deadly. If it were safe and there were re rolls for famous people it would be totally different.

An aggrandizing fantasy with statistical window dressing is not moving or cathartic. Your character can't truly be a combat hero unless there is an impartial element of risk or maiming.

In a crazy firefight even the best of the best are at great risk. I recommend "We Were Soldiers Once And Young" as an amazing Vietnam history that really highlights this.

A true great and tragic story may arise from the characters if you let the dice fall where they may, and seasoned veterans will probably minimize combat because they know their luck will run out one day.

The best and most amazing combat stories are the ones that aren't planned.

I could almost believe that if the game didn't favor the players.
If you want a game about combat that is lethal and fun at the same time try Usagi Yojimbo

[Yerameyahu]

Yeah, RPGs are about PCs. They're unrealistic and powered by narrative-magic. Shows like Burn Notice and Leverage, movies like Heat and Italian Job, or even Saving Private Ryan, aren't great because they're real. That doesn't mean it's not awesome to be all tacticular, or that bad GMing isn't bad GMing. Just as any cheating ((IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) hehe), GM cheating can be good, indifferent, or bad. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If the group knows that it doesn't want kid gloves, take them off; if they're fine with it, etc.

[Falanin]

In my opinion the problem was that as the GM you tried to get a very precise and fine line outcome from the opposition, ie specifically slowing the players down just so. So the real issue was the finesse with which the scenario was supposed to run.

IMO the way to go is to design opposition without specifically considering the PCs or a specific outcome. Instead, IMO the right thing to do is design an opposition that seems realistic or reasonable given the facility or what have you. It might be too much for the PCs but it's up to them to recon and find that out and create an appropriate plan. It's all about planning and tactics and therein lies the game.

I agree. As I mentioned in another thread, I generally only tailor the opposition to the players when their fixer has set up a run tailored to their talents. In this instance... the site security was designed without knowing the party's capabilities. I just wanted something that would reasonably delay anyone breaking in until arrival of a response team.

[Ravennus]

No one gives two shits about the story? Why the hell are you there for in the first place? To test out your rules knowledge? To see if your build works like it was supposed to? I'm flabbergasted at the concept that story means zilch and rules means all.

I'll just respond to this bit....

Sorry if it sounded like I never care about story. I most certainly do. That specific part of my rant was in the context of this ONE campaign that I played in. I should also specify that we didn't hate the story AT FIRST. It was only after a few games that we, the players, started losing interest in the story because nothing we did ever mattered. We could live, we could die, we could try to drink ale at the local tavern.... none of it mattered, because the story always happened exactly how the DM thought it should and because our rolls never mattered. If he wanted us to hit (rarely) we hit. If he wanted us to miss (which was often), we missed. etc, etc...

It also didn't help that the DM of that particular game involved a whole lot of politics and intrigue (a style that didn't exactly fit most of this group). Also, he relied heavily.... VERY heavily on a crazy encyclopedic knowledge of setting lore. I knew a little about this particularly setting, but the other players didn't and the stuff went way over their heads.

All this added up to.... them not giving two shits about the story.

Does that make better sense?


Personally, I love story in a PnP RPG.... when I feel that I have an impact on it as a player. Otherwise I'm just a backseat driver to someone else's fantasy. No thanks... that's not how I enjoy tabletop roleplaying.
Not that I don't occasionally enjoy some spectator fantasy... but that's why I read books, watch movies, or play Final Fantasy XIII! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[toturi]

No one gives two shits about the story? Why the hell are you there for in the first place? To test out your rules knowledge? To see if your build works like it was supposed to? I'm flabbergasted at the concept that story means zilch and rules means all.

Hell I've run whole campaigns were every die roll I rolled was purely for show and just made up the results. Any decent GM can do that and give the group a great session. It is not hard by any means.

I am there for a game. If you are there for a story, you could do better by watching a film or reading a book.

I am flabbergasted at the concept that the dice results means zilch and story rules all, and that a decent GM will run whole campaigns ignoring his players inputs and tell his predetermined stories. If I want to participate in someone else's self-masturbatory fantasies, I'd go watch fucking Twilight instead.

[Ravennus]

I am flabbergasted at the concept that the dice results means zilch and story rules all, and that a decent GM will run whole campaigns ignoring his players inputs and tell his predetermined stories. If I want to participate in someone else's self-masturbatory fantasies, I'd go watch fucking Twilight instead.

QFT!

Mind if I nab that for my sig as well? That's exactly what I've been trying to say all along, and you summed it up way better than I could! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)