Full Version: Rules Lawyers vs. GMs
Except he's not rolling dice to cross the room, either he gets there or he doesn't. It is not like an attack, or casting a spell at someone, it is movement. The only time rolling comes in to play in movement is when they are doing something like jumping or climbing or running long distance or to catch the speeding car in time to jump on it (2 rolls there). Not crossing a room.
Dice are rolled anytime you sprint.
QUOTE (The Grue Master @ Jul 15 2010, 06:17 PM) 
Dice are rolled anytime you sprint.
Only if they are trying to increase their running distance. Otherwise, they just move thier alloted movement, no roll. Now, as GM, I would most definately call for running tests in several situations: uneven terrain, under fire, sprained ankle, etc..
QUOTE (Rand @ Jul 15 2010, 07:22 PM)
Only if they are trying to increase their running distance. Otherwise, they just move thier alloted movement, no roll. Now, as GM, I would most definately call for running tests in several situations: uneven terrain, under fire, sprained ankle, etc..
I was under the impression that trying to increase your movement was sprinting, that might not be accurate.
Edit: Found the section-
Sprinting
Characters may attempt to increase their running distance by spending
a Simple Action (rather than just a Free Action to run) and making a
Running + Strength Test. Each hit adds 2 meters to their Running
Rate.
I wasn't trying to start a semantic argument, just seemed to recall that was what the relevant test was called and used the word accordingly.
Yes. I wasn't talking about movement, it was just an example. You suggested that the problem is a mechanistic un-dramatic universe, and my point was that that's what dice are for. No one cares about crossing a room. It's too boring to worry about, but it's the example the other guy happened to mention. 
Aaahh. OK, thick skull penetrated. An option, not a rule. Gotcha. (Good movie.)
I am generally trying to have a little less die rolling (which is why I am developing a static defense number system instead of all attacks being opposed tests where there will be dice rolled 2-4 times).
I am generally trying to have a little less die rolling (which is why I am developing a static defense number system instead of all attacks being opposed tests where there will be dice rolled 2-4 times).
TGM: Yeah, sprinting is a specialty you can take to get +2 dice to running test when trying to increase your movement speed. That is on page 136 of SR4A.
Well, Sprinting *is* the action, any time you increase your movement.
Exalted 2e has a static system for defense. All they did was take the old one (opposed rolls) and divide by 3 to get the expected hits.
More or less.
Still, that's the exact reason we have any dice at all. If you wanted, you could pre-calc everyone's stats and just compare: higher wins. Every time. Boring, but SO fast!
Exalted 2e has a static system for defense. All they did was take the old one (opposed rolls) and divide by 3 to get the expected hits.
More or less.Still, that's the exact reason we have any dice at all. If you wanted, you could pre-calc everyone's stats and just compare: higher wins. Every time.
Boring, but SO fast!
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 15 2010, 03:52 PM)
...to know their personal physical abilities down to, yes, a numeric level.
Is it over 9000?
>.> Maybe. The units can be anything, after all.
QUOTE (LurkerOutThere @ Jul 15 2010, 09:48 PM)
Personally in this instance I've made it clear to my players that reading the adventure ahead of time and not identifying that's the case to me will be considered a form of cheating. Life is too short to cheat at table top RPG's, on the other hand life is too short to put up with cheaters.
Why should a player identify that's the case to you? And why is it cheating?
As a GM, I do not think it matters if my player has read the adventure or not. What matters is if he tries to use that knowledge, even then I do not think that it is cheating, it is metagaming but not cheating IMO.
Ditto, but to some people cheating is a big deal. *shrug* It's not like there's money on it.
QUOTE (toturi @ Jul 15 2010, 10:10 PM)
Why should a player identify that's the case to you? And why is it cheating?
As a GM, I do not think it matters if my player has read the adventure or not. What matters is if he tries to use that knowledge, even then I do not think that it is cheating, it is metagaming but not cheating IMO.
As a GM, I do not think it matters if my player has read the adventure or not. What matters is if he tries to use that knowledge, even then I do not think that it is cheating, it is metagaming but not cheating IMO.
Why is it cheating? The player is cheating himself out of the enjoyment of a new shared experience.
I perfectly understand if someone had run or played through a module that has been out for a while. That is an unfortunate side effect of using an older module.
QUOTE (Piersdrach @ Jul 16 2010, 10:01 AM)
Why is it cheating? The player is cheating himself out of the enjoyment of a new shared experience.
I perfectly understand if someone had run or played through a module that has been out for a while. That is an unfortunate side effect of using an older module.
I perfectly understand if someone had run or played through a module that has been out for a while. That is an unfortunate side effect of using an older module.
Actually, its cheating the other players and the GM in my opinion. For example:
[ Spoiler ]
Any time a player start metagaming, they should find that things are not adding up to what they know.
A GM that can adjust on the fly to counter their knowledge of the scenarios is my kind of hero.
"yea well.. you did play it before so I figured I might throw my own little twist in there." After that? they can't count on what they know. Should solve the problem real fast.
A GM that can adjust on the fly to counter their knowledge of the scenarios is my kind of hero.
"yea well.. you did play it before so I figured I might throw my own little twist in there." After that? they can't count on what they know. Should solve the problem real fast.
Intentionally not mentioning to a GM that you have played/read an adventure is just plain wrong. It is bad table manners, rude to all involved and an all around dick move.
But not one that matters much to anyone. You can't win anything, so you can't really cheat. Even fudging dice rolls doesn't really change much.
You can't win anything, so you can't really cheat. Even fudging dice rolls doesn't really change much.
Not saying you read the adventure isn't really cheating, but not telling the GM that you did is certainly being dishonest. And, if a player is dishonest about something as simple as whether or not they have played an adventure when else are the fine with being dishonest about?
Either way if they use that knowledge it is absolutely cheating. The line between cheating and metagaming is a fine one and as soon as dishonesty comes into play that line has been crossed. A player stopping his character from doing something the character would most certainly do because he has a low score in the relevant stat is metagaming.
Either way if they use that knowledge it is absolutely cheating. The line between cheating and metagaming is a fine one and as soon as dishonesty comes into play that line has been crossed. A player stopping his character from doing something the character would most certainly do because he has a low score in the relevant stat is metagaming.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 16 2010, 02:16 PM)
But not one that matters much to anyone. You can't win anything, so you can't really cheat. Even fudging dice rolls doesn't really change much.
You can't win anything, so you can't really cheat. Even fudging dice rolls doesn't really change much.You seem to have a fairly low standard for the people you game with
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 16 2010, 02:16 PM)
But not one that matters much to anyone. You can't win anything, so you can't really cheat. Even fudging dice rolls doesn't really change much.
You can't win anything, so you can't really cheat. Even fudging dice rolls doesn't really change much.It mattes completely and changes everything. People who "Cheat" or attempt to "Win" are missing the point, destroy the fun, and ruin most games they are a part of. It is a abandonment of any semblance of fairness and a display of an utter lack of respect for those you game with.
So? It's just a game. A non-competitive game. Let them 'miss the point', and the assumption that it 'ruins the game' is merely that. Respect and fairness are irrelevant, because the GM is running the game. It can't be 'unfair'.
It is possible for a player to ruin the game, yes. There are any number of ways to do this, and 'cheating' is hardly the biggest (or surest) of them. The jerk player is a problem, because of *being a jerk*.
It is possible for a player to ruin the game, yes. There are any number of ways to do this, and 'cheating' is hardly the biggest (or surest) of them. The jerk player is a problem, because of *being a jerk*.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 16 2010, 02:38 PM)
Respect and fairness are irrelevant, because the GM is running the game. It can't be 'unfair'.
I believe this qualifies as the most absurd notion have ever read on dumpshock!
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 16 2010, 02:38 PM)
It is possible for a player to ruin the game, yes. There are any number of ways to do this, and 'cheating' is hardly the biggest (or surest) of them. The jerk player is a problem, because of *being a jerk*.
I would love to hear what qualifies in your mind as someone "being a jerk" if you consider respect and fairness irrelevant.
Sigh. I'm not saying people should cheat. I'm saying that the only way it's a problem is if it breaks the game, which is not the guaranteed result. It is a possible result. The game can also be broken by legal overpowered characters, by distraction, by characters refusing to 'play along', by the GM (in countless ways). Cheating, which can be wholly innocuous, is not the same as breaking the game.
Fairness isn't an issue, because you can't be unfair. The GM can be unfair, but only by breaking the rules and, therefore, not being much of a GM.
Respect isn't an issue because all that matters is your actions, not what you think. I've certainly played with people I didn't respect, and I'm sure each of you interacts successfully with people you don't respect in your daily life. You can also act in game-breaking ways even when you *do* respect people. It is not related, unless you define 'respect' as 'playing nicely'.
Fairness isn't an issue, because you can't be unfair. The GM can be unfair, but only by breaking the rules and, therefore, not being much of a GM.
Respect isn't an issue because all that matters is your actions, not what you think. I've certainly played with people I didn't respect, and I'm sure each of you interacts successfully with people you don't respect in your daily life. You can also act in game-breaking ways even when you *do* respect people. It is not related, unless you define 'respect' as 'playing nicely'.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 16 2010, 02:55 PM)
Respect isn't an issue because all that matters is your actions, not what you think. I've certainly played with people I didn't respect, and I'm sure each of you interacts successfully with people you don't respect in your daily life. You can also act in game-breaking ways even when you *do* respect people. It is not related, unless you define 'respect' as 'playing nicely'.
I deal with people every day I don't respect is situations such as work where I have no choice. Someone whom I don't respect isn't getting invited to my house for a game. I would rather play with one good player than a table full of people I don't respect (which is why I almost never play LFR anymore).
Exactly: when you have no choice, respect does not preclude successful interaction. You're free to your personal preference, but I'm making the point that respect is not a requirement for successful gaming; at most, faking it is. And 'cheating' is unrelated to respect.
And 'cheating' is unrelated to respect.
When I'm fighting GMs I like to use napalm.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 16 2010, 02:38 PM)
So? It's just a game. A non-competitive game. Let them 'miss the point', and the assumption that it 'ruins the game' is merely that. Respect and fairness are irrelevant, because the GM is running the game. It can't be 'unfair'.
It is possible for a player to ruin the game, yes. There are any number of ways to do this, and 'cheating' is hardly the biggest (or surest) of them. The jerk player is a problem, because of *being a jerk*.
It is possible for a player to ruin the game, yes. There are any number of ways to do this, and 'cheating' is hardly the biggest (or surest) of them. The jerk player is a problem, because of *being a jerk*.
I see the big difference at least between you and me about this. To you "it's just a game". To me this is my hobby. This thing we do here, is far more than just a game. That word 'game' is what trips more people up than any other one word does in this genre. Can you name any other 'game' that you 'play' for hundreds maybe even thousands of hours over the course of months or even years?
That is precisely why I call this my hobby. This is what I do for enjoyment, it takes both effort and time for that enjoyment. Gaming with someone who rates it no better than Uno or Settlers of Catan or Freeze-Tag is missing the fundamental aspect of what this actually is.
What strikes me odd at your post here is "A non-competitive game....Respect and fairness are irrelevant". I am leaning towards the concept that to you only a competitive game should have respect and fairness?
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 16 2010, 02:55 PM)
Sigh. I'm not saying people should cheat. I'm saying that the only way it's a problem is if it breaks the game, which is not the guaranteed result. It is a possible result. The game can also be broken by legal overpowered characters, by distraction, by characters refusing to 'play along', by the GM (in countless ways). Cheating, which can be wholly innocuous, is not the same as breaking the game.
Fairness isn't an issue, because you can't be unfair. The GM can be unfair, but only by breaking the rules and, therefore, not being much of a GM.
Respect isn't an issue because all that matters is your actions, not what you think. I've certainly played with people I didn't respect, and I'm sure each of you interacts successfully with people you don't respect in your daily life. You can also act in game-breaking ways even when you *do* respect people. It is not related, unless you define 'respect' as 'playing nicely'.
Fairness isn't an issue, because you can't be unfair. The GM can be unfair, but only by breaking the rules and, therefore, not being much of a GM.
Respect isn't an issue because all that matters is your actions, not what you think. I've certainly played with people I didn't respect, and I'm sure each of you interacts successfully with people you don't respect in your daily life. You can also act in game-breaking ways even when you *do* respect people. It is not related, unless you define 'respect' as 'playing nicely'.
When someone puts legal and overpowered next to each other I can safely say that to me they have completely missed the whole premise of what an RPG is and does.
That's kind of the whole point. Breaking the game 'legally' and 'illegally' are equally bad, because they're *breaking the game*. The method does not matter; cheating (per se) does not matter.
'Hobby' and 'game' are in no way mutually exclusive; nor is 'game' worse or less real or less respectable than 'hobby'.
Breaking the game 'legally' and 'illegally' are equally bad, because they're *breaking the game*. The method does not matter; cheating (per se) does not matter.'Hobby' and 'game' are in no way mutually exclusive; nor is 'game' worse or less real or less respectable than 'hobby'.
QUOTE (Piersdrach @ Jul 19 2010, 07:41 PM)
Can you name any other 'game' that you 'play' for hundreds maybe even thousands of hours over the course of months or even years?
Does WoW count?
QUOTE (Traul @ Jul 19 2010, 06:15 PM)
Does WoW count?
If it doesn't, any of the more recent Final Fantasy games would.
And hey, Starcraft II comes out in about a week. You know some crazy-ass folks are going to get their Bnet on.
Or soccer, paintball, chess, tabletop wargaming, professional and competitive Starcraft…
RPGs are special precisely *because* cheating in them doesn't (again, per se) matter.
RPGs are special precisely *because* cheating in them doesn't (again, per se) matter.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 19 2010, 06:18 PM)
Or soccer, paintball, chess, tabletop wargaming, professional and competitive Starcraft…
Miniature painting for the tabletop wargaming...
Building shelves for the miniatures for tabletop wargaming, carefully arranging the models in tableaux, dusting regularly, dreaming about them coming alive and talking to you and being your friends…
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 19 2010, 02:18 PM)
Or soccer, paintball, chess, tabletop wargaming, professional and competitive Starcraft…
RPGs are special precisely *because* cheating in them doesn't (again, per se) matter.
RPGs are special precisely *because* cheating in them doesn't (again, per se) matter.
You either are being deliberately obtuse or just 'don't get it'. Did you not notice what "soccer, paintball, chess, tabletop wargaming, professional and competitive Starcraft" have in common? Yes that is correct you have a winner and a loser. That is the problem people have with the word game.
Why does it matter if you cheat in "soccer, paintball, chess, tabletop wargaming, professional and competitive Starcraft"? Are people's lives on the line? Is someone going to take your chess set away? Someone going to smash your minis on the floor? Are you going to be refused new paintballs? Someone going to take your computer away?
QUOTE (Piersdrach @ Jul 19 2010, 06:53 PM)
You either are being deliberately obtuse or just 'don't get it'. Did you not notice what "soccer, paintball, chess, tabletop wargaming, professional and competitive Starcraft" have in common? Yes that is correct you have a winner and a loser. That is the problem people have with the word game.
Why does it matter if you cheat in "soccer, paintball, chess, tabletop wargaming, professional and competitive Starcraft"? Are people's lives on the line?
Why does it matter if you cheat in "soccer, paintball, chess, tabletop wargaming, professional and competitive Starcraft"? Are people's lives on the line?
In some cases, yeah. Some of those guys take it really personal when you do an Overlord rush and bypass the Stasis Fields...You don't game in open-air restaraunts, some guy will come by and shank you.
QUOTE (Traul @ Jul 19 2010, 02:15 PM)
Does WoW count?
WoW only counts if your still in high school or under. Grownups play EvE Online.
QUOTE (Congzilla @ Jul 19 2010, 07:01 PM)
WoW only counts if your still in high school or under. Grownups play EvE Online.
Eeeeugh. If that's the case, I don't wanna grow up.
Don't whine because we refuted your careless statement that 'hobbies' are not games, buddy. I was specifically giving examples of lifelong, 1000s of hours hobbies that also happened to very clearly be games.
I was specifically giving examples of lifelong, 1000s of hours hobbies that also happened to very clearly be games.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 19 2010, 01:48 PM)
That's kind of the whole point. Breaking the game 'legally' and 'illegally' are equally bad, because they're *breaking the game*. The method does not matter; cheating (per se) does not matter.
Breaking the game 'legally' and 'illegally' are equally bad, because they're *breaking the game*. The method does not matter; cheating (per se) does not matter.You forgot "cheating (per se){to me} does not matter.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 19 2010, 01:48 PM)
'Hobby' and 'game' are in no way mutually exclusive; nor is 'game' worse or less real or less respectable than 'hobby'.
Of course they are not. I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. I said the problem is people think of it as a game. Look at what you are doing. You are trying to downplay cheating because "It's just a game. A non-competitive game." That is the attitude that game brings to this.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jul 19 2010, 03:10 PM)
Don't whine because we refuted your careless statement that 'hobbies' are not games, buddy. I was specifically giving examples of lifelong, 1000s of hours hobbies that also happened to very clearly be games.
I was specifically giving examples of lifelong, 1000s of hours hobbies that also happened to very clearly be games.Really?
You can play the same game of chess for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of paintball for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of starcraft for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of TTG for thousands of hours?
I did not say hobbies cannot be games. Perhaps your comprehension missed what I was saying.
No, it's not. Cheating *does* matter in almost all other games. As I mentioned above. It is not *because* it's a game that cheating doesn't matter. It's because it's a Role-Playing Game. I made this very clear earlier, but again:
RPGs are not free-form RP and they're not table-top wargaming/chess/whatever. They're RPGs. They're roleplaying with a more-or-less strong rules base and (almost always) a system of advancement. They suck when they're broken, by whatever means: powergaming, bad GMing, sheer stupidity, whatever. Cheating at an RPG *can* result in breaking (usually because it's analogous to powergaming); cheating can also be utterly harmless. Cheating per se has no bearing on game-breaking.
Playing 'the same game' is irrelevant. Even if it were, you can, btw, play the same game of WoW, or EVE, etc.
Anyway, returning to your original point: it's no less a hobby for me, or for anyone else. Hobby-status has no bearing on the question of cheating. The fact that people have different personal, emotional reactions to the concept of cheating is precisely that: a fact about their personal feelings.
RPGs are not free-form RP and they're not table-top wargaming/chess/whatever. They're RPGs. They're roleplaying with a more-or-less strong rules base and (almost always) a system of advancement. They suck when they're broken, by whatever means: powergaming, bad GMing, sheer stupidity, whatever. Cheating at an RPG *can* result in breaking (usually because it's analogous to powergaming); cheating can also be utterly harmless. Cheating per se has no bearing on game-breaking.
Playing 'the same game' is irrelevant. Even if it were, you can, btw, play the same game of WoW, or EVE, etc.
Anyway, returning to your original point: it's no less a hobby for me, or for anyone else. Hobby-status has no bearing on the question of cheating. The fact that people have different personal, emotional reactions to the concept of cheating is precisely that: a fact about their personal feelings.
Baseball is also "just a game", and the profession of many millionaires. The idea expressed earlier was that "cheating" was alright because it's non-competitive, not because it's "just a game". Unrelated rant: One of the things I hate the most are people who are idiots and/or assholes in online games with the excuse that "it's just a game". I'd love to see those guys play terribly or be a huge dick in a game of basketball in a public park and try that "relax, it's just a game" line, depending on the neighborhood they could get beaten to within an inch of their lives =P
I've wanted to get into EvE but I hear the PvE is very weak and I really don't want to bother with a ganking/griefing style PvP gameplay. Cruelty is for children.
QUOTE
WoW only counts if your still in high school or under. Grownups play EvE Online.
I've wanted to get into EvE but I hear the PvE is very weak and I really don't want to bother with a ganking/griefing style PvP gameplay. Cruelty is for children.
QUOTE (Piersdrach @ Jul 19 2010, 03:20 PM)
Really?
You can play the same game of chess for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of paintball for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of starcraft for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of TTG for thousands of hours?
I did not say hobbies cannot be games. Perhaps your comprehension missed what I was saying.
You can play the same game of chess for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of paintball for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of starcraft for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of TTG for thousands of hours?
I did not say hobbies cannot be games. Perhaps your comprehension missed what I was saying.
You're kidding right? People make a living playing chess and starcraft. "Thousands of hours" is an understatement.
The amount of money people blow on tabletop war gaming and paintball is pretty crazy, too. Nevermind how long painting the figures takes. You'll get your "thousands of hours" spent before you even play Warhammer 40k or whatever.
QUOTE (Piersdrach @ Jul 19 2010, 08:20 PM)
Really?
You can play the same game of chess for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of paintball for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of starcraft for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of TTG for thousands of hours?
I did not say hobbies cannot be games. Perhaps your comprehension missed what I was saying.
You can play the same game of chess for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of paintball for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of starcraft for thousands of hours?
You can play the same game of TTG for thousands of hours?
I did not say hobbies cannot be games. Perhaps your comprehension missed what I was saying.
Down, tiger.
You aren't running the same run for thousands of hours either. Hyperbole aside, no matter how you feel about it - this, like Warhammer, Starcraft, or anything else is just a game. Some of the others have the advantage of becoming more than a game - you could get paid to play sports or even game competatively, but SR sadly doesn't have that option.
The issue here is you calling this a hobby as if it were some badge of honor awarded by a grizzled veteran. So what? Miniature painting's a hobby, but in the end they're either only for show or for actual gaming. Calling this a hobby doesn't make this any more serious than I or anyone else takes this game system - the only thing I get by calling this a 'hobby' is an attempt to claim my books and gaming materials as a tax-deductible expense and my GMing 'business' has lost money for more than three years in a row.
So what exactly are you saying, then? It seems to me you're attributing a hell of a lot of seriousness to something that's supposed to be fun.
QUOTE (Lanlaorn @ Jul 19 2010, 03:26 PM)
You're kidding right? People make a living playing chess and starcraft. "Thousands of hours" is an understatement.
The amount of money people blow on tabletop war gaming and paintball is pretty crazy, too. Nevermind how long painting the figures takes. You'll get your "thousands of hours" spent before you even play Warhammer 40k or whatever.
The amount of money people blow on tabletop war gaming and paintball is pretty crazy, too. Nevermind how long painting the figures takes. You'll get your "thousands of hours" spent before you even play Warhammer 40k or whatever.
Are they playing the same game for thousands of hours? No they are not. One game concludes they gets their monies and they go to another game. Biff the street samurai is played for thousands of hours(hopefully)
Painting is not a prerequisite of miniature gaming. There has always been two schools of thought on it. One side thinks "It's a game that allows you the option of painting" The other "It's a painting hobby that may come with rules to play with the completed miniatures."
A game is a session. Don't be silly. If a continuous character makes it 'one giant game', how about Magic the Gathering with a deck that changes as much as a street sam does? This entire tangent of yours is ridiculous.
At the very least I don't see how he can turn his nose up at MMORPGs using his crazy definition of "a game". I've played Everquest and WoW with some embarrassingly large days /played.
QUOTE (Lanlaorn @ Jul 19 2010, 08:56 PM)
At the very least I don't see how he can turn his nose up at MMORPGs using his crazy definition of "a game". I've played Everquest and WoW with some embarrassingly large days /played.
I know more than a few folks who have played their one character on WoW religiously for the past five years.
I would love to have one of my runners live that long. Disinterest is the #1 killer (besides cyberzombies and gunslinger adepts that can't drive).
RP snobs, oy.
Indeed, it's a *rare* RPG that has a game last years, whether it's D&D or SR or whatever.
Indeed, it's a *rare* RPG that has a game last years, whether it's D&D or SR or whatever.
QUOTE (Congzilla @ Jul 14 2010, 11:38 AM)
I saw this in another thread and felt the need to comment but I didn't want to derail that thread.
This part in bold bothers me as a GM and a player. As a player I dislike anything at the table more than the player that feels the need to correct the GM. And I certainly do not feel that the point of knowing the rules is to correct people's mistakes. Sometimes GMs make mistakes and a quick reminder isn't a bad thing but if the GM explains why they are ruling it that way, that is it, accept the ruling and move on. If you don't like the ruling you politely speak to them about it AFTER the session. Players not letting go of rulings that they don't agree with at the table has lead to more arguments than anything else I can think of from all the games I have played.
There are also times when a GM needs to rule against RAW for different reasons, usually to keep the game balanced and paced. If a GM is constantly doing unfair things the situation will resolve itself as all the players leave to find a different GM. As a player I typically enjoyed games more when I didn't know all the rules. Not thinking in terms of mechanics and just thinking in character to me is kinda the point in playing, the escapism. These days it is hard to find any games not filled with rules lawyers, I'm half tempted to start running all the games I play using Paranoia's golden rules (the GM is ALWAYS right and demonstrating knowledge of the rules is treason punishable by death).
I am interested to hear what others think about these types of situations and how you handle them.
This part in bold bothers me as a GM and a player. As a player I dislike anything at the table more than the player that feels the need to correct the GM. And I certainly do not feel that the point of knowing the rules is to correct people's mistakes. Sometimes GMs make mistakes and a quick reminder isn't a bad thing but if the GM explains why they are ruling it that way, that is it, accept the ruling and move on. If you don't like the ruling you politely speak to them about it AFTER the session. Players not letting go of rulings that they don't agree with at the table has lead to more arguments than anything else I can think of from all the games I have played.
There are also times when a GM needs to rule against RAW for different reasons, usually to keep the game balanced and paced. If a GM is constantly doing unfair things the situation will resolve itself as all the players leave to find a different GM. As a player I typically enjoyed games more when I didn't know all the rules. Not thinking in terms of mechanics and just thinking in character to me is kinda the point in playing, the escapism. These days it is hard to find any games not filled with rules lawyers, I'm half tempted to start running all the games I play using Paranoia's golden rules (the GM is ALWAYS right and demonstrating knowledge of the rules is treason punishable by death).
I am interested to hear what others think about these types of situations and how you handle them.
What is the point of playing a game if the GM is just going to disregard the rules? All the statistical outcomes the game design is predicated on gets screwed if the GM edits outcomes. As soon as you do that a single time the integrity of the rules has been broken and we might as well be writing a story instead of playing a game. So a GM should be corrected if he is screwing with the stats.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.