Defining the role of the GM and the players, I want to continue this discussion here. Options

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

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.

Yes, I know that quote, I think it's mostly horrible.

The story is what happens when PCs interact with the world via the game mechanics. The GM doesn't tell the story, everybody does. If you want to tell a story that doesn't work via the rules, then obviously you've made some sort of mistake. This is a mistake that happens so often, and even outside of games. TV-shows, for instance, often present a world where things work a certain way, and then completely throw that around for some cheap drama at another occasion. Ever watched that steaming pile of crap the show "Heroes" became after the initial few eps?

However, noone said you can't sometimes fudge things so that, for instance, someone doesn't die (usually a PC), someone can do something cooler than the rules allow for, or things like that. Fudging isn't fiat in the sense that it is usually done in tacit agreement, and mostly just plays with the probabilities: A situation might be improbable, but not impossible, and if it provides entertainment to have the improbable rather than what the dice say, then you fudge it.

However, if you want to make a mary sue and are even too lazy to make it conform to the rules, then that's just it: lazy.

[Yerameyahu]

It sounds like your earlier hyperbole was just that, then. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If fiat only means 'totally random GM whim', then that's not what I'm referring to. If you're granting that the GM gets a *tipping* vote, that's enough for me. First among equals is fine; equal among equals is not.

[Minimax le Rouge]

the role of the GM and the players? easy question : having fun playing together.

The problem isn't who have final word and such.
The problem is : are you here to play a game together, or are you here to WIN the game? If a player, or worse the GM, is playing against the others, the problems starts.
And obviously, after more than 20 years as a player and GM, their is only one answer : kill hem with fire, and don't play with them again. It's an uncurable mental disease, you have better not allow them to be one your tables.

[Paul]

I once had a player who seriously thought that his character, whom he had brought from a previous game-supposedly-could carry a full sized wood chipper up the side of a 72 story building. We were so flabbergasted, our first thought wasn't to argue the difficulties of an assisted climb lobbing a several hundred pound machine up the side of a building; but rather we asked what exactly does your Street Samurai need with a wood chipper? With a straight face he answered "How do you guys dispose of the bodies in your game?"

[Eliahad]

Oh wait, I figured out what's going on here. The argument isn't GM vs. Player contributions. Or even the role of the GM. It's this:

Are the rules, even future house rules, set in stone?

or

Are the rules more like guidelines?

[Ol' Scratch]

Are the rules more like guidelines?

The rules flat out tell you this is the case, as mentioned in my quote earlier in the thread.

[Whipstitch]

Personally, I'm more than fine with equal among equals. As a rule I take pains that the obstacles I put into the environment can be affected by the players and function according the rules we have agreed to work with. If it's something that can't really be approximated under the rules very well--like say, heavy vehicles due to the lack of a non-proportional damage system-- then I don't bother to build it into my game or we houserule it until it works. I wouldn't give my players a "Do Not Pass Go" firewall to deal with, for example. The entire point of a skilled hacker is that they keep up with this stuff and while they may lack personal experience with such a firewall I'd assume that they are familiar enough with the concepts of 2070s computing to take a crack at the thing. With technomancers the notion hits me as even sillier given that people frankly don't understand how they do what they do. You might have to blow some Edge or get your Sprites assisting to beat that new milspec firewall because it's high rating, but if the players roll well, they roll well. I apply the same sort of sniff test to just about every plot device I consider using; you could say that one of the "rules" at my table is "A Wizard Did It" isn't really acceptable or satisfying.

[Paul]

Are the rules more like guidelines?

Hey Eliahad. Nice to see you stop by. For my money the rules are guidelines we all agree upon. Rule Zero is however the one rule that is absolute for me. Now like Whipstitch and many others have mentioned in this thread I see no reason to create a game or scenario that relies on people pandering to me, or can't be interacted with by the Players.

By the way rule zero, to me, is fun. That's what we do this for right?

[Ol' Scratch]

Personally, I'm more than fine with equal among equals. As a rule I take pains that the obstacles I put into the environment can be affected by the players and function according the rules we have agreed to work with. If it's something that can't really be approximated under the rules very well--like say, heavy vehicles due to the lack of a non-proportional damage system-- then I don't bother to build it into my game or we houserule it until it works. I wouldn't give my players a "Do Not Pass Go" firewall to deal with, for example. The entire point of a skilled hacker is that they keep up with this stuff and while they may lack personal experience with such a firewall I'd assume that they are familiar enough with the concepts of 2070s computing to take a crack at the thing. With technomancers the notion hits me as even sillier given that people frankly don't understand how they do what they do. You might have to blow some Edge or get your Sprites assisting to beat that new milspec firewall because it's high rating, but if the players roll well, they roll well. I apply the same sort of sniff test to just about every plot device I consider using; you could say that one of the "rules" at my table is "A Wizard Did It" isn't really acceptable or satisfying.

I think the problem here is a difference of terminology. What you're describing is railroading and handwaving, and I don't think anyone is advocating that sort of thing. Instead, the use of "GM fiat" is referring more to making a decision on a questionable area in the rules on the fly. Even if it proves to be wrong, it's more important to be able to do that to keep the story and the game going than sitting there for an hour or two arguing over it.

I think this discussion is really more about whether it's okay to let rules lawyers dictate a game session rather than letting the GM -- who's the arbiter, referee, rules interpreter, and storyteller -- do their job.

[Wiseman]

Hey Eliahad. Nice to see you stop by. For my money the rules are guidelines we all agree upon. Rule Zero is however the one rule that is absolute for me. Now like Whipstitch and many others have mentioned in this thread I see no reason to create a game or scenario that relies on people pandering to me, or can't be interacted with by the Players.

By the way rule zero, to me, is fun. That's what we do this for right?

Rule Zero works! Not because GM is God, but because GM is the only one concerned about EVERYONE's benefit/fun. And players need boundaries to have a sandbox worth playing in, otherwise it's just a pile of sand and gets dispersed and overgrown with grass rather quickly.

I don't think anyone advocates constantly steam-rolling players, GMPC's (that never seem to play by the same rules), ignoring player feedback/enjoyment, blanket "because I said so" rulings, or railroading. Everyone contributes to the fun and so deserves to have a say in it. But most games worth playing have a referee who doesn't carry a direct stake in the game or its outcome. Without an impartial final say, differences of opinion will devolve into dispute ad nauseum and thats not really having fun either.

[bustedkarma]

With a straight face he answered "How do you guys dispose of the bodies in your game?"

Made my day.

[Mayhem_2006]

I would argue that *of course* the GM is more important than any given player. If one player doesn't turn up, the game can continue. If the GM doesn't, the game can't carry on without him.

And I have no qualms with the GM determining house rules and dictating what rules he uses when he is running. After all, if he wants to screw my character over and leave him dead in a ditch, he can do it whatever the rules say, so every session I as a player am putting 100% trust in the GM anyway - so why not extend that trust to his choices of what rules to play?

It's all down to trust. You either trust your GM, or you don't. Brain apparently doesn't, and doesn't expect his players to trust him. I couldn't play that way, but if it works for you, then have fun with it.

Right now I'm playing in a nationwide LARP in which I don't know the stats for most of the monsters, have no idea even of the skill-list of other character classes, nor even knew fully what the skill progression was for my own character before I reached the level at which given skills became available. And I'm OK with that, because I trust the (many) GMs, the Senior GMs and the Campaign Co-ordinator. If I didn't trust them, I'd find another game to play.

[Warlordtheft]

Hey Eliahad. Nice to see you stop by. For my money the rules are guidelines we all agree upon. Rule Zero is however the one rule that is absolute for me. Now like Whipstitch and many others have mentioned in this thread I see no reason to create a game or scenario that relies on people pandering to me, or can't be interacted with by the Players.

By the way rule zero, to me, is fun. That's what we do this for right?

+1 here. I find that as a GM in a player table (some have GM'd before but I basically run the SR games since I am most comfortable witht he rules) listening to the players helps you understand the rules better cause lets face it SR is a complex game with 500+ pages of rules and equipment. If you have memorized those more power too you. Me, I'm a victim of edition creep, or just plain forgetfulness.

ALso as a GM I find a good idea to get feed back from the players to see where they want the game to go OOC.

Regarding GM Fiat:Use it rarely and only for plot or adventure hooks or to resolve inconsitant/obscure rules.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Oh wait, I figured out what's going on here. The argument isn't GM vs. Player contributions. Or even the role of the GM. It's this:

Are the rules, even future house rules, set in stone?

or

Are the rules more like guidelines?

Well, it's "are the rules set it stone, and if not, who gets to change them?"

I say the group as a whole gets to do that.

I do think that good mechanics (if they exist) are there for a reason, and too much fudging or even flat-out ignoring them will detract from the fun, because now you have a world where stuff isn't fixed. Will the rock fall, or will it float on its own? Is there any way to predict that?

Which is why I think the rules are rules until the group decides to change them.

I just want to give you an example of rules implementations, and what I consider to be too much fudging (incidentally a topic I had to discuss with a player of mine):

In D&D (3.5 obviously (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) ) there are certain concise mechanics for stunning someone, for immobilizing someone, for inflicting other kinds of detrimental conditions, and for non-lethal damage. There is NO rule for knocking people out cold by hitting them on the back of the head. To do that, you have to hit them until they drop from the non-lethal.
Now STILL many people will want to do "knock-out-ninja"-moves on people, or knock out a person with one blow. And people might say that "it's necessary for the story". It's NOT. Change the story. The world doesn't work that way in D&D! There are classes that can make sure you can in fact do this, with class abilities. A rogue with a sap for instance can sneak-attack with non-lethal damage and hence knock people out. A barbarian might power-attack with non-lethal damage. And yes, sometimes in order to knock someone out you may have to bludgeon him repeatedly until he drops. However, that's not a bad story, it's just different from what's in the movies. Hence, it's GOOD STORYTELLING to do this the way the rules work. If a D&D GM at some point were to say: "Uh, while you are standing around someone comes up behind you and knocks you out", I would politely ask him how much non-lethal damage I got, or which condition he imposed on my character. And if I later meet that NPC and he says it's, let's say, a fighter, then I would ask what ability he used to inflict that much non-lethal in one hit. If he has an answer, fine. If not, then that's something that just won't fly, and I'll flat-out tell him that what he did doesn't work, and he shouldn't do it again.

Another example:
In SR there are no wound effects beyond the DP mods. There is no bleeding to death without going into overflow first (unless some ability does that). So? That's how the world works. Shadowrun people don't bleed to death from merely a severe wound. Period. I can accept that fact and simply build my stories around things like that. If a GM went ahead and said "uh, you have 6 boxes of damage, what are you doing running around?", I would simply say "Perfectly true, I have six boxes, that means I stop running around when I have, let's say, 11 or 12 boxes". And that's it.
Shadowrun has a history of bad-ish mechanics: For instance, in SR3, a "commoner" couldn't recognise his mother as soon as he has to make a perception check. It was also pretty hard to shoot yourself in the head, because that was "blind fire" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) . And if you shot someone in the leg with a called shot, he would MORE probably die, because the damage code automatically went up one notch.

And if you want to have situations occur that don't incorporate those rules, then you have to change them first, because obviously they are part of the game world. I'm the first to agree that you should change them, but you actually have to do it, not just simply tell an occurance while forgetting that they exist. The GM can't just do that. It's poor scenario design and poor storytelling (for example for the table equivalent of a "cut scene").

[Paul]

Made my day.

I could write a book on how not to role play based on this cat. In some ways I learned more from him than a lot of my other players. Of course it was all what not to do....

[Patrick Goodman]

Oh, boy, this again. I'll get into this later when I'm not at work and have a chance to read it more fully, but @brainpiercing: It sounds to me, just from skimming the surface ever-so-lightly, like you've had a serious quality control issue with your GM(s) for a long, long time. I could be wrong, and I'll discover this later when I've read more, I'm sure, but that's what it sounds like from here at this point in time.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I once had a player who seriously thought that his character, whom he had brought from a previous game-supposedly-could carry a full sized wood chipper up the side of a 72 story building. We were so flabbergasted, our first thought wasn't to argue the difficulties of an assisted climb lobbing a several hundred pound machine up the side of a building; but rather we asked what exactly does your Street Samurai need with a wood chipper? With a straight face he answered "How do you guys dispose of the bodies in your game?"

That's...... Entertaining, if a little bit (okay, WAY) over the top... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

It seems clear that, if we assume the GM is a bad GM, then less GM power is better. I still don't think this proposition has relevance toward the question of non-bad GMs, though.

[suoq]

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.

Added the bold. WHY should it become transparent? In a game like "Call of Cthulhu" I don't see a need for some things to ever become transparent. Part of the lure of Lovecraftian games is that there are things not meant to be known or understood.

I, personally, have no problem playing a lovecraftian game where I don't know the rules and will never know the rules. Your philosophy, the one you say is always "better", prevents that sort of game entirely.

I cannot accept a methodology as being "better" when, in the name of safety, it prevents me from doing what I want to do. It's perfectly valid, works for some groups, and may even be necessary for the kind of groups you seem to have joined and been a part of. But that doesn't make it "better" for everyone else, just you.

[HunterHerne]

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.


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.


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.


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.



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.


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.

I know politics are to stay out of the thread, but this entire post reminded me of communism. It works, but only when everyone wants it to work. As soon as someone decides they want to be able to be "better" then someone else, it falls apart. It's why communism fails in reality, and in this case, where people are willing to follow the story the GM decides on, even if they might not get the same full benefits as an opponent (Really, what percentage of PC's get regular access to regeneration? And even if they do, the Critter powers section specificallly says "These are suggestions. The powers listed here do not have to work this way, but most should") it fails then.

[Whipstitch]

FFS, don't take it there because we'll argue all day since I think capitalism falls into the same trap. If I had a dime for every "We're just not applying capitalism vigorously enough even though many of us are clearly suffering" argument I'd be rich enough to start thinking capitalism is a great idea. Capitalism works in the sense that it expects some people to fail and then doesn't particularly care when it happens. It is admittedly very good at self-fulfilling prophecies.

Okay, there, got that out of my system. God.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Added the bold. WHY should it become transparent? In a game like "Call of Cthulhu" I don't see a need for some things to ever become transparent. Part of the lure of Lovecraftian games is that there are things not meant to be known or understood.

I, personally, have no problem playing a lovecraftian game where I don't know the rules and will never know the rules. Your philosophy, the one you say is always "better", prevents that sort of game entirely.

I cannot accept a methodology as being "better" when, in the name of safety, it prevents me from doing what I want to do. It's perfectly valid, works for some groups, and may even be necessary for the kind of groups you seem to have joined and been a part of. But that doesn't make it "better" for everyone else, just you.

Uh... ok, I'll concede that Cthulhu might need that. A game I... dislike, let's say it like this, because it doesn't didn't seem to ever mechanically capture what the character are supposed to be going through, while at the same time demanding I see things which I didn't.

My only ever try at it ended up with the GM suddenly throwing the towel, because my character wanted to get a few tons of dynamite and simply blow up the house with the monster in it. He said it wasn't supposed to be played like that, but I never even had a hint that it should have been played otherwise. My character was a Mafioso with a Tommygun and a generally stinky attitude. It was perfectly in character for him to blow the house up after finding some sort of monster in it, and there were no mechanical hints that it should have been played otherwise.

Granted, this was one of those "ok, we'll just start, and then you can start reading the books" kind of thing. No, actually, he had a short excerpt that he copied for everyone which laid down the basics. That we read. But it still didn't give me a hint that I was supposed to just be scared, and run off and slowly go insane, or whatever, which seemed to be the gist of the game that he wanted us to experience.

[Ascalaphus]

I've played in some great CoC games. In one, we were totally loaded with weapons; didn't help us one bit. But CoC isn't the easiest game to GM.

Rules don't matter a lot in CoC. We rolled the classic 6 D&D stats, multiplied Wisdom by 5 to get starting sanity, and that was the extent of the rules involved in character-building.

CoC should be played with the player expectation that your character will die horribly, but that it's all about finding out how you die. You don't need rules to make sure the GM plays "fair", because he's not supposed to.

[Yerameyahu]

Honestly, blowing up the house could theoretically be okay. It's *literally* destroying the GM's game, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) He'd have to have planned ahead for that; that's just a realities of GMing issue.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

I've played in some great CoC games. In one, we were totally loaded with weapons; didn't help us one bit. But CoC isn't the easiest game to GM.

Rules don't matter a lot in CoC. We rolled the classic 6 D&D stats, multiplied Wisdom by 5 to get starting sanity, and that was the extent of the rules involved in character-building.

CoC should be played with the player expectation that your character will die horribly, but that it's all about finding out how you die. You don't need rules to make sure the GM plays "fair", because he's not supposed to.

Meh, really not my kind of game, sorry...

In any game where it's basically certain the character is about to die I will still try to keep him alive, using all the means available. The game felt rules-light to me, too, which is why I was liberally calling other mafia guys for help, and for this and that. I suppose the main problem was that i made an actual combat character with really good stats (lucky rolls) in a game where combat is supposed to end... well, in a bloody mess for whoever is not a monster. I mean Cthulu monsters are supposed to be worse than Earthdawn Horrors, right? It seemed the game suggested you play historians or other kinds of bookworms, or journalists and such, who then get hopelessly messed up, but at the same time there was this huge image of the beautiful tommygun right across the page and there were all kinds of violent professions you could play.

I think he ran a scenario from that excerpt booklet, it was about a guy going missing, and some monster ending up in the attic of his country-side cabin. I think one of the PCs poked his head through the hatch to the attic and then got hit with something nasty that ate his face or so, at which point I decided to unload the entire drum mag into the ceiling, and then call uncle Luigi for the dynamite. Heh, it was even out of town, which just meant it was even smart to just blow it up. Had it been in town, I would have tried to get more muscle... I think the GM was smart enough to not give me the dynamite, at which point I went to the gas station to get a hundred gallons, and... then he just quit.

Seriously, was any other course of action? Something just ate another guy's face, why would I go up there?

In retrospect: Obviously my attitude was wrong, because I played a game with monsters in it as a game with monsters in it. Which apparently just won't work for Cthulu.

I also have to say the only ever (very few) Lovecraft short stories I read were really.... un-scary. Because they were so vocally explicit about how scary everything was, which just breaks it for me.