So your problem is that you want to be a rules lawyer and you can't if a GM doesn't follow your rules? Do you ask for the character sheets of every NPC you encountered throughout the entire campaign and look at the average and standard deviation of their stats to make sure that the DM really did use the 3d6 method that the rules say a standard NPC has? Or that he at least used the nothing more than the elite stat block? Do you also expect a full accounting of the economics of the dark tower and where the evil warlord got the expertise and money to build 3 fireball traps when the ruins of the town only contained 20 goblins, so it should only be a small village and gp cost is too high for a small village to provide those traps? Do you want him to justify how the miners managed to make it through the rock with picks that cannot deal enough damage to overcome the rock's hardness? and then let the group vote on whether or not his explanation and house rule for that was plausible enough? and then make available to you a special 3d6 damage rock pick, because you can't accept that rules are be necessity abstractions?

I think you're being a bit ridiculous. Yeah, as a player it is wrong if a GM just arbitrarily said something I want to do does not work and the rules should usually be followed, but if a GM wants to say that a monster or villain does 5d6 nonlethal damage in an attack or that the Threshold to hack an ultra-high security node is 7, without having built entirely through the feat tree or scoured through Unwired to get the exact way that it works, that's fine. He or she is creating challenges and a good GM will create them at an appropriate level where they are difficult without being impossible. Obviously, the GM should not just say, "You fail, you lose, because I said so." and change things randomly, but I don't think anyone is actually expecting that from a halfway decent GM. I am fine with my GM saying, these guys do X damage, because that's how much they need to do for this to be exciting, even if the books says that they only carry X weapon which does not do that much damage.

I just quit a campaign that fit perfectly with your "ideal" way to play. I quit, because it was horrible. The GM laid out a world at the beginning, following all of the D&D 3.5 rules, and we all agreed on types of characters, races, the equipment that would be available. Then he laid out a 50 by 50 miles stretch of desert we were operating within and filled it with NPC's and PC's, he actually built entirely within the rules, buildings, monsters, treasures, etc. We spent hours rolling navigation checks, worrying about dehydration, moving through the desert, rolling for the chance of random encounters on the set schedule, talking to people that were little more than scenery, and never got anywhere or did anything fun. If the GM had been willing to just railroad us a little towards what was exciting within this desert world or towards a story, it would have probably been a great sandbox game. But he wouldn't because "He did not want to break the rules, because that would be cheating." There are times where the game is more important than the abstractions of a world that the rules represent and I prefer a GM that is willing to recognize that and act on it.

I'm not sure why blowing up a single building with available explosives would be an isse in a cthulhu module. It may be unexpected but I don't see why it needs to end the story.

A GM using fiat to be a dick has much less to do with the fiat part and more to do with the dick part.

A responsible GM using fiat only uses it for one reason: to make the game better for both him and the players.

A GM who does it to be petty or arbitrary is likely to do similar stuff even if he was in a situation where he cannot alter the rules.

I've met them, in that exact situation. At conventions, in "living" games where GMs are REQUIRED to go strictly by the book wth zero rulesbending or fiat. Dick GMs are stil dick GMs, even in that environment. I've even witnessed GMs bragging about how they scored a total party kill in this or that convention game. It has nothing to do with fiat.

That said, I did not say that "GM is God" is any better or worse than "Consensus Rules". The only "wrong" thing is claiming one particular play style is The One True Way, better than any other. There's no such thing. Only playstyles that suit certain groups better.

In any case, it should be made clear at the start what kind of campaign is being run.




-k

Looks like you are once again suffering from the problem of having a bad GM, which is not a good basis for judging an entire game, and seems to be at the root of your need to feel equal at the table.

You have had bad GMs, you don't feel you can trust GMs, so you demand an equal say in all things and insist that this is the best way of doing things.

Others have had different experiences, and are willing to trust their GMs with the mechanics as well as the story.

***

As an aside...

Lol at the idea of a "combat character" in Cthulu. Most of the creatures need fighting with brain, not brawn, and often the best use for a gun in a Cthulu situation is to blow your own brains out before the monsters get you...

If I were the GM in that scenario, I'd have (obviously, really) had Luigi ask what you wanted the dynamite for, with any mention of monsters resulting in a rapid trip to the looney bin. "Hey, ya like a son to me, but you are clearly whacked in the head. These nice doctors will soon sort you out...". Being a member of The Family doesn't give you licence to request enough dynomite to take out a house no-questions-asked unless its a house the family specifically want taken out.

Or, if you had managed to obtain it, had you attacked whilst setting up the dynamite. 100 sticks don't carry themselves into the house in one go, or set themselves up.

Or, had the dynamite destroy the house but not the monster, which is totally fair play in a Cthulu scenario. I believe the intro for the Cthulu modern scourcebook had the answer to the question "What happens if we nuke cthulu?" as "He regenerates within 5 rounds, but now he's radioactive too."

Like it! As an aside, I would become worried if said player had a wood chipper in his backyard IRL ...

One CoC I played in, we were a racist aryan biker gang in Mexico, with enough heavy weapons to get away with it. So we stole the Evil Artifact ™ from the cultists because it was shiny, and it drove us all horribly insane. (Except my character. Quite sane, totally doped under valium all the time though...)

Another game, we were college students having fun with an antique spellbook, and ended up eaten by seagulls sent by an angry bird-god



That aside, some of the lesser monsters can in fact be killed with weapons, and I think the attic monster may have been one of those. If it happened to me as a GM, I'd take a break to think about it, but it's not the end of the world. Actually, it might be the one success that convinces a PC that hunting all these monsters is possible, which is his first big mistake. Let's see him try to blow up the Color From Out Of Space - part of the horror is discovering that the weapons you trust in are useless

I must admit that I find myself on the side of Paul, suoq et al in this discussion.

The GM, with the trust and acceptance of the players, sets out the game world and makes it breathe. On most tables, should something come up in game that the rules don't cover, the players usually trust the GM to come up with a fair way to resolve the situation. As a GM, I am fine if a player suggests "How about we resolve it this way?" if it makes sense to me, and if it doesn't I am happy to explain (briefly) why I don't think it is such a good idea.

However, while I will take player input on board I will not be railroaded by them, even if the majority of them want things to be done in this or that way. This is not because I am some authoritarian dick, but because as I do not have a vested interest apart from Paul's Rule 0 (by vested interest I mean a PC), I am impartial.

In general, probably 99% of disagreement between GM and player is a result of a powergamer who wants an Insta-Win. You only have to look at some of the arguments on DS to see this. My players are fine with the way I GM, and they too would not welcome one at our table.

Yet another party who could not help going to the brothel in the ancient aztech temple...


To cover all the bases, the group needs:
-a black,
-a nerd,
-a blonde with big boobs.

On rule changes, like I said I am on the side that says the GM as the impartial ajudicator makes the rules with the trust, and sometimes the input of the players. To my mind interpretation of the rules, rulings for grey areas and house rules are the GM's job, not a group concensus but YMMV.

I won't go into mechanics of the Other Game, but my thoughts on knocking people out in SR are as follows:
a) A prone target who is "willing" can get knocked out by a single punch/weapon butt/flat of blade. This usually happens when security guards who have done their jobsworth by sounding the alarm surrender rather than take a sammie's one-shot one-kill lethal bullet to the brainpan (or whatever body part). This may be fudging in your book, but I don't want to penalize players timewise by making it faster to shoot prone security guards in the face than subdue them. In fact, on my table, a PC who shamelessly murders a surrendered goon will have a whole lot more heat decending on his/her arse because it's not biz and that dead NPC has friends and family, and the Star has a thing about cold-blooded murdering sociopaths ...
b) I would never Insta-knockout a PC, that would always be rolled; then again, I would also never let a PC Insta-knock out an NPC if they were not willing as in (a) above ...

As for wounded people running around willy-nilly in SR, your take is right game mechanics wise. At my table, I would play up the pain the PC feels in the narrative, but not penalize him/her mechanically more than the wound DP modifier.

As Ol'Scratch has pointed out, the book does suggest fudging things if that makes for a better story, and I am all for that sentiment. If that makes me a bad GM in your rulebook, c'est la vie ...

Name the beast with a thousand bellies and no brain.

Congress?

Close it's a committee.

I think that there's a lot of good discussion to be had here, but the problem is that people are using weird terms and putting emotional impact into words that doesn't need to be there.

To start with - Brain, I was going to suggest you looking into "GM-less" games - games where the players come up with the scenarios, roll them up, and play through - but it sounds like you're heavier on the crunch, lighter on the GM. Dunno if I can think of something to suggest to you for that, but I'm sure it's out there.

However, I think you need to start looking at gaming theory material. Hell, I think everyone does; I've been trying to improve my hand at being a GM lately, and I've found a wealth of knowledge. Go poking around The Forge and Story Games and start reading. Especially Story-Games.

Honestly, I think everyone could benefit from reading that forum.

What we're all talking about here is called the social contract; the (most of the time) unconscious agreement everyone at a table makes when they sit down to game. It's also starting to get heavily suggested that you pull it out of the unconscious and into the conscious - take the first session to sit down, discuss what your goals are with the game, what you want to do - have everyone at the table do the same - and then make characters designed around those goals and aims. You'd be surprised at how that eliminates a lot of future problems.

Now, I don't think I would want you anywhere near my table Brain, and despite that sounding like a dismissal, it isn't. I just don't think you'd have any fun at my table; I run by the, "eh, whatever," rule, which is, if it sounds cool / fun / interesting, run with it. You don't; I think you're going to call that GM Fiat and call it a day.

But it's what works at my table, and I have the complicit agreement of everyone playing at my table that that's how things are going to work. It's not going to be for everyone but it suits us fine.

What I take issue with, on the other hand, is your constant need to insert "it's obvious (from the position that I stand in) that this is the wisest, best way to run a game, and the rest of you are deluding yourselves," into the conversation. No, they're not.. They're running games with their players, with or without a conscious, thought-out and group determined social contract, and it's working for them. From your position, they're freaks; their social contract doesn't work like yours does. There's no "obviously better" involved.

(I would love to hear your gaming background Brain, no lie.)

I think that this is a very interesting discussion of playstyles, and I think it would serve us all best if we stopped and listened to each other and stopped being preachy, dismissive and defensive. There are very real issues at play here - player / GM power, social contracts, shared game experience, et al - that could really help people out here, new or old. Yelling at each other that we're having "badwrongfun" is going to get none of us anywhere, and neither is defending entrenched ideas and values.

Some Reading

The Big Model (discusses social contracts and their use in gaming)
GM-Less Gaming and Games
The Play Advice section of Story-Games. Poke around here; lots of good stuff.

(I'd add links to actual gaming theory, but it's time for work. Yay?)

You see, it starts there. Define powergaming.

I've seen people here on these boards claim that getting 4IPs at chargen is powergaming. That's just so ridiculous that I can't even laugh about it. And if that guy starts GMing he will use his GM character veto right (which of course is in the book) to veto that character. When in fact it's mostly just a matter of opportunity cost which is usually too high at chargen.

On the other hand, a lot of characters I see people post on these boards are really extremely optimised, because the game itself probably demands that you do it to even have a chance at both competence and a bit of well-rounded-ness. A lot of those characters I would have no interest GMing for, because they seem so contrived, but I would still not veto them. I would rather give the players more points and tell them to min-max less.


I got that idea, too, but hey, the character couldn't know that, right?

The main problem I had with Cthulu was that the entire set up of going insane seemed poorly set up, mechanically.


No, I'll give him any amount of leeway as long as I have the feeling he is generally following the rules. That does not mean he can't introduce new content. However, D&D is a system with a transparent library of abilities. Anything not available to player characters should have a focal function and be suitably packed in new fluff to explain the rarity. You can't just give it to a run-of-the-mill thug.
Of course, these things exist - I have primary bad guys who have abilities not covered in the books. However, of the PCs in my current campaign most have at least something they could homebrew, which makes them just as unique.

Also, suddenly changing things for plot events destroys the believability of the game world. I'll give you video games as an example: So often do you find games where the main protagonist (or bad guy) has just survived being shot in the nads for 5000 times, and then you get a cut-scene where a single bullet or a knock to the back of the head suddenly knocks him out. That just ruins it for me. At that point it's clear that the game mechanics obviously are either not what the designer of the plot really wanted, or whoever wrote the plot was too lazy to let the world actually use those mechanics.

That being said, the campaign you talked about seems tedious and hardly exciting. The GM should have gone ahead and thrown out those tedious world mechanics (which don't really work, anyway) and either taken his liberty of being the designer of the scenario, or created house rules for his world.

The miner problem is a bit unique among those things you mentioned: Generally D&D3.5 approximates a medieval world pretty well at low levels, even level 1. The numbers are mostly right. That miners can't actually damage rock is a problem, I guess. However, first of all, the miners aren't attacking the rock. (Although hitting it with a pick comes close.) Secondly, they could be using teamwork and power attack - but at their BAB of 0 that wouldn't work. However, things are not as bleak as you make them seem:
Stone has a hardness of only 8. A two-handed miner's pick should deal 1d8 damage, which means they only need 12 Str and roll an 8 to get through on a regular hit, which they can do automatically (the hit) once per round. It's probable that you don't deal a lot of damage. But the D&D rules are yet better than that: After taking a few hours to deal a few hundred packets of one point of damage at a time to the rock, you take a huge lever, a giant crowbar so to speak, and do a teamwork strength check using Aid another to split off the piece of rock. You need 14 guys to do this (a +1 bonus and 14x+2 for Aid another and +2 for the giant crowbar makes +31, so you need to roll a 19 to succeed, because you've previously reduced the piece of rock to half its HP, which reduces the breaking DC to 48.) So you see that the D&D rules are actually fully functional in that respect.

And now that I know this I can safely say that people can mine in D&D. In addition, in my games people get XP for free just for getting older, which means that eventually you might have level 10 miners who easily destroy the rock.

Do understand that I'm not this petty for everything.

Umm.... steel is hardness 10 so it ignore stones hardness of 8.

F'n Dig!!! - warcry of Rio Tinto

What I'm seeing more in more in this discussion is what we used to call the "Art Garfunkel school of consensus".

Paul Simon wrote "Bridge over Troubled Water" in the key of G.
Art Garfunkel, however, sings in the key of E-Flat. That's it. No compromise. If Simon is performing with Garfunkel, G is not on the table.
So, Jimmy Haskell picks up a Grammy by transposing "Bridge over Troubled Water" into the key of E-Flat.

I've had to work with a lot of Art Garfunkels over the years. They often think their way is best because we all so often do it their way and make it work and when we do it any other way with them it fails. Over time they're convinced that any methods other than theirs fails even though it works when groups that don't contain them use those methods. But since they aren't a part of those groups, they don't see why those methods work.

I fully agree with Brainpiercing that any group he's in should use his methods. What I (like others) disagree with is that his methods are the best methods for the rest of us to use. We don't all need to sing in E-flat. It's a great key. And it works for you. But that doesn't make it the best key.

Now at this time, I have a bit of Art Garfunkel in me as well. I don't want to sit around the table and attempt to get the entire group into consensus about the goals of the game, the characters we're going to run, and the rules. I'm not going to try and deal with the person who insists their way is the best way and says things like "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." I'm going to ignore them and mentally prepare to go home early because I've already resolved not to game at their table. I'm just going to hang with friends until it's time to create characters and then I'll head out.

Because the group that operates that way is just a bad fit for me, at least right now, and I know it.

No need to.

We do.

What you're not understanding is that what's best for YOU is not necessarily what's best for EVERYONE.

It boils down to trust.

Do you trust your GM to be an impartial and fair arbiter? If so, then single authority works.

If not, then yes, you may prefer group consensus.

Note that none of the examples you have given of GM fiat have been fair or impartial. In fact, it seems greatly that you don't trust your GM. Which may be justified, I don't know your GM. But not everyone is in the same situation as you.



-k

Honestly, that's the biggest issue here. If you'd said, 'I've found that "democratic gaming" is cool, guys', we'd be *done* here. Instead, you said, '"GM-choice" (aka, normal) gaming is morally wrong, bad, and *obviously* inferior to my way".

Careful, we're perilously close to logical, rational and reasonable discussion!

Well lets fix that - turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly - thus proving gm fiat is greater than player consensus.

Hold on, we have to draw a syntax tree for that…

Ok, seriously this is not a matter of what's best for different people. There are objective criteria by which you measure the success or quality of a method, and applying them reveals a best method. Note that a best method doesn't mean only method, and doesn't mean that it's best in every individual situation, just in the majority of situations, or at least if it doesn't per se promise a better result, then at least it should have fewer potential problems.

That being said, there may be other methods that also work for different people, but when applying objective criteria they cannot be the overall best.

If the default were a democratic process in gaming you could STILL just always say yes to everything the GM says. Which first of all proves that in fact trusting your GM to make a decision for you (I won't call it authoritarian now, because it's voluntary) gaming is actually a possible subset of democratic gaming. And secondly, it's an option that doesn't exist the other way around. Every one of you could come to my table and play, because all you need to do is say yes whenever I suggest a house rule or ruling. I cannot come to any of your tables, or at least I would be making a far greater compromise in doing so, because as soon as I were to say "Ok, I'm sorry you have to make a house rule for that and I disgree with it" then we both have a problem.

So really, NORMAL should be a way where a consensus is reached, because we are a group of adults at the table who can discuss things and work things out. Anything else is voluntary submission (for example to the imperfections of reality, which may necessitate a different approach in borderline cases. )

Now look at things logically:

We have A and B (being gaming quality and the lack of aggravation potential for authoritative gaming
And C and D (being the same for democratic gaming)

And now A=C, because you can still voluntarily say yes, and B < D, because objectively if you give people a voice there is objectively a smaller chance of quarrelling and problems

Or let's translate it to the mantra of gaming: fun.

With democratic gaming there is a greater chance that everyone will have fun because everyone has a voice, and need not hide his opinion, or find it suppressed by a single other opinion. (But indeed by a group consensus that opposes him, but which is more likely?)

So the end result is really clear to me. Obviously for ME there are many MORE reasons why democratic gaming is better, which don't apply to everyone.

There is no "best", because every table is different and has different needs.

Flat out.

And there is no reasonable situation where you are involuntarily playing at a "GM rules all" table, and you don't trust the GM to be fair and impartial and apply fiat only to make the game better. Because that situation is one where you stop playing with that group.



-k

Sorry but that's a crock of shit. Yeah it's shit you strongly believe in but once again you're portraying your personal preference as the objective standard.

Brainpiercing, it works the other way. GM-choice can be the same as 'democratic' if the GM always makes his choice based on the apparent majority. Obviously.

By "logically" I'm assuming you mean "throw out all the data that does support the desired conclusion".

We've already brought in a category of games that doesn't work under your "best" solution but since you don't like that category, you're throwing it out of your data.
We've already brought in the situation of not wanting to have this discussion where everyone agrees on the rules, something that's required in your methodology.


This contains the huge assumption that we either
a) want to game at your table (see my previous post)
b) want you at our table (see my previous post)

For me, your model is NOT "the best" because it doesn't allow for certain games I like and it encourages behavior at the table I don't like. I'm sorry, but I do not want to play games in the way you've described so being told I can play your way is of no attraction to me whatsoever, just like being told you can play our way is of no attraction to you.

Try to understand this. "Just saying 'Yes' isn't all I have to do at your kind of table. I also have to sit there while the rest of you come to your consensus using any means necessary (see your above comment to Paul) to get people to agree with you. That is not fun for me. That kind of table is a bad fit for me, therefore your method is a "best" for you, but not for everyone.

I've also been at a number of tables where the players are also regular GMs and tend to debate about every little thing.

You spend half the damn game session arguing the damn rules instead of playing.

Which means trust goes both ways, I suppose. You have to be able to trust the GM and the players.

And let's face it, there are quite a few people that really shouldn't be a part of any decision making processes. Some of which still insist on being a part.



-k

Perhaps if the rules were written a bit better this wouldn't be such a problem...


and, unfortunately, most of them vote

I have yet to see a game system where the rules are so perfect that there is no discussion at all on the rules. I have seen a few that are close.

No, because you are saying that GM choice is the baseline. It's not. It's a group of people getting together to play a game that's the baseline, and these people should hash things out, or at least get presented a transparent ruleset at the beginning.

Baseline is you agree to certain things.



You've brought in one game. And even so, that game could still simply say "it's the GM's job to make up threats, for which we can provide no conclusive mechanic at this point." At that point it's play at your own risk. Whether that's a good game is entirely different question.


Fact of the matter is, I would have no reservations accepting any one of you at any table I were to run, because my method can accomodate various opinions. Yours can't. The simple matter that you wouldn't want me there also says enough, because you simply wouldn't want someone to be vocal about his opinion. That's power-tripping at its best.


No it doesn't. I encourages responsible gaming. Rules hashing happens before and after play.

You don't have to even BE there when the consensus is reached. I've repeatedly said during sessions I'm in favour of the 45 seconds of whatever time limit for rules questions ruel. So seriously constantly twisting my words to mean you hash everything out while playing is stupid. I don't do that, only when I'm playing a new game and noone knows the rules. I do demand that the GM can explain the mechanics he used after play.

Democratic gaming is all about options:
When I meet five people I don't know (through whatever coincidence) and we come around and say "let's play some shadowrun", then there is no baseline available in the rulesets that allows me come into that group as a player without reservations. I would immediately have to say: Ok, we can do that, but we have to ignore all that bullshit about the GM in the beginning, or else I can't join. Games should say in their rulesets: One guy hashes out the scenario, plays the rest of the world, and acts as arbiter when the mechanics can't come to a satisfying conclusion at a certain point. After the game, the problem should be reiterated with the whole group, and a mechanic implemented to solve it in the future. If the group doesn't desire this, the GM should make a suitable house rule on his own.

Fact is far too many games still say: The GM is in full control of the game, and every decision and thing is up to him, even if the rules say otherwise. And that's just plain bullshit carried over from the dawn of gaming when Gary Gygax thought it was fun to put "duhduh, you're dead" kind of elements into his games.

And the rules for a game should cover the most possible options for making a great setup for a variety of people and personalities. Don't write games for teenagers, write for adults, who can talk to each other. And those adults can STILL agree to put in a GM authority, because they are adults.

Or, perhaps, you just grow the hell up and respect the GM's decision then talk about it after the gaming session. God forbid.

What makes the players any better at arbitrating rules?

I've met plenty of players that argue rules but plain have no understanding of balance and design, looking at things only from their character perspective. A single-arbiter system requires only one person be fair, understanding, and impartial. A group-arbitration system requires ALL of the members be fair, understanding and impartial. How many gaming groups can you say will have the latter?

Group consensus does ensure that everyone at least feels they have a say in things, but it does not necessarily ensure the rules will be better. Some of the worst decisions in the world have come about because something was being decided by committee. There is sometimes a difference between something feeling more fair, and something actually being more fair. A clear-thinking impartial single decision maker can in fact be more fair than the mob.

Additionally, group consensus has it's strong points, but it also introduces a level of schizophrenia to the rules set. With a single controlling element you at least can hope to achieve some semblance of consistency.

Personally, for me consistency is far more important than everyone having their say. As long as things work how I expect them to, it doesn't matter who's controlling the rules.



-k

You're cheating again, Brainpiercing. There's no question of 'baseline', the question is 'can system X be contorted to match Y?' The answer is yes for both. And again, when you say:Both methods accommodate various opinions, and there is zero question of 'power-tripping'. You're the one introducing that irrelevant point over and over.

Very true, but I've seen few so poorly assembled as SR4 (and still be playable). The SR4 game design itself is fine (give or take details here and there, the ridiculous power of spirits, and the whole Matrix), it's just the way the rules themselves were actually written down and then assembled together in the book.

Seriously every time I hear "Fact is" you are attempting to reinforce your position through repetition. Every time I see "logically" I see the same thing. Attempting to state that your side of the argument is factual and logical does not make it so, particularly when the overwhelming evidence says otherwise. Sure it is only anecdotal, but anything with gaming is going to in general be anecdotal. Just from a simple count here the burden of proof is on you. We have all explained why your "democratic gaming" does not survive contact with most groups. Your persistent claim that it will work for more people than not is not born out by the evidence presented to date, in fact the contrary is true, additionally the recurrence of the word "rules" is constant. Really even my current group which has a total of 3 GM's out of 5 players is not into the rules as much as the plot, theme, mood, of the cooperative tale we are making, the "rules' are a framework to use or ignore based on the needs of the story. The only people who really care about the rules enough to argue about them at a table in my experience are the ones who try to bend, twist, and squeeze every advantage out of said rules to outshine the other characters, garner more "power", or simply to make themselves the center of attention (not the character/s) at the gaming session, quite simply people most people don't want to play with in the first place. While I have seen your "democratic gaming" in action in the past the groups engaged in this rarely had games which lasted for any length of time because they would disintegrate and gravitate to the tables having "bad/wrong method fun", because they preferred an inefficient, draconian, authoritarian, old fashioned, narrow minded, game where they did not need to think so much about the oppression created by the uncertainty of the rules and a GM who likes his high altitude throne. Enjoy the hyperbole.

I'm not sure how that would make any difference to some rules actually being poorly written.

Yes, nothing will stall a game faster than a GM who lets a rules debate drag out. There needs to be a decision point and players need to accept it and move along. There will be plenty of time after the run to debate the rules ad nauseum until a compromise can be reached.

Baseline is what's written in the books, first and foremost, because everything else takes people talking to each other.

And currently, what's written in the books promotes power-tripping GMs, because it actually say that a GM CAN do that. Your opinion that it doesn't happen is irrelevant, because it does happen, and those people quote the books for justification. So if the baseline, the book, were better, then at least they could not do this while feeling smug about themselves. That was my initial point: SR is a reactionary system because the book is vocal about the GMs position of power over the rules, and any changes to and deviations from them. It takes an agreement to deviate from that.

"Hey guys, my method is superior to yours because mine has no problems and yours has problems."

"Well, actually, your method has these problems."

"Ah, I see you didn't understand me, let me explain again. MY METHOD IS SUPERIOR TO YOURS BECAUSE MINE HAS NO PROBLEMS AND YOURS HAS PROBLEMS."

Yeah this has, sadly, degenerated into your everyday internet dick swinging fight. I did enjoy seeing how some people see the roles in an RPG group, and I am glad to see that I'm not the only person out there having fun. Now off to plot some game! Oh, and dinner.

Since we are arguing in a vacuum, there can be no substantial evidence in any direction, everything we say here is conjecture, deduction, and conclusions based on that. So far the "GM choice" side has only said "our method works". By repetition, without any argument at all. That's not even an argument, because my counter-argument is "I've seen it fail, multiple times". Although probably those GMs would also have said that the method works, because they never even saw the problem.

I have also never said the method doesn't work, I'm saying it's bad as a baseline, most specifically as a baseline to write into a rulebook.

And people STILL read frankly wrong things into what I say.


Again, in big bold type so everyone can finally get it:

Rules discussions and consensus happens BEFORE or AFTER the playing session.

So now that I've destroyed your only argument, what's next?

Your position, that single-arbiter systems are ALWAYS worse, only makes sense if most GMs were power-tripping assholes.

Which is simply not the case.

It may be what YOU have encountered, but your experience is just that. yours.



-k

I didn't say, 'what is a baseline?'. I said, there is no question of a baseline. Baseline is not a factor.

And your way promotes power-tripping players, same difference. A gamer, regardless of position, who has lost sight of the story and only cares about "winning" should be excused from the table and come back when they have the correct mindset. This is an RPG, not a tabletop wargame. If a GM or player wants to 'win' they should go play Warhammer 40k. If they want to be part of a story where, if it's fun, everyone wins then they can come back to the SR table.

Some very bad GM has seriously scarred you at some point in your past. GM's like that usually end up as players or not getting invited back. No one here is saying "players don't have input". When it comes to decisions on vague rules you just can't let the debate drag out forever and stall the whole session and you can't let the players just all out-vote you and decide some cockamamie rule that unbalances everything in their favor. "I think you should be able to spend Edge and get hits instead of extra dice and I think Edge should regen one point per minute because "per game session" is too arbitrary. All agreed say aye!" "Aye! "Aye!" "Aye!" ... and the GM has his face buried in his hands as he weeps quietly on the inside.

As to your distaste for GM's fudging to make the story more fun, well great... if you want to run your table strictly "by the numbers" and let your story run wherever it may regardless of how boring or deadly or random it ends up becoming that's up to you. It's your table... well, as you say, it's actually not your table; it's the groups table. You should only be GMing strictly by the numbers if all the players put it to a vote and agree you should be running it that way.

Are we truly arguing in a vacuum. If we were you would at least have to say that your argument for this particular method holds no more water than any other method, however we don't see that in your argument, we see a consistent thread of you having to be right, and refusing to accept other viewpoints without the caveat that you are right. So based on that the real thing I see here is that you are afraid of anyone GMing who might be like you.



Why? Because order is worse than chaos, or controlled chaos is better than unbending order. Get a grip, it is a game.



Nope I think we all get that you only want to see things your way, and anyone else presenting anything is operating in a vacuum, reading into what you are saying, not accepting "facts" you present, or not thinking "logically" according to you. No I don't thing anyone is reading anything into your argument except for the blindingly stubborn refusal on your part to accept that everyone else has an equally valid opinion, and that is all any argument based on GMing method can be, an opinion.



So now that you are done showing the world that you are what you fear in gaming, what next? We can act condescending, and blindingly stubborn also if you like...I just don't see the point of it.

If one or two people interpret what you say in a way other than how you meant it then they read it wrong

If just about everyone interprets what you say in a way other than how you meant it then you wrote it wrong

QFT

Alright. Logic. Fine.

We have five tables. Table A, B, C, D and E.

At Table A the GM is in control and trusted by his players to make decisions in a fair rational way. He creates a scenario. The players create conflict within the scenario through the actions of their characters. The conflicts are resolved and the scenario plays out.

At Table B the GM is not trusted by his players to make decisions. He creates a scenario, but the players create conflict with the scenario and story he has in his head. The GM must adjust the conflicts to suit the outcome that he has predetermined for his scenario.

At Table C there is a GM and he is not trusted by his players to make decisions. The GM knows this, but he is willing to take on the GM roll, so when a conflict arises between the outcomes and the mechanics the group discusses the possibilities and decides on what rule to use. The conflicts are resolved and the scenario plays out.

At Table D there is NO GM and the players equally, create and resolve the scenario throughout the course of their time at the table. On situations that become unclear, the players vote (or through game mechanics) decide what to apply in a given situation. The conflicts are resolved and the scenario plays out.

At Table E there is no GM and the players create and resolve the scenario throughout the course of their time at the table. But at this table when a situation becomes unclear, one player is more outspoken than the rest, and the scenarios tend to take on /his/ point of view. The conflicts are resolved but play out in the way that one player intended.

Two of these tables are instantly discounted because they involve 'non-ideal' situations, where there is not cooperation between the players. When there is a lack of trust, the game cannot continue and the process dissolves. Which leaves us with three tables.

Table A, Table C and Table D. (There's room for a table F, which is a hybrid between A and C, which would also be successful.)

How can we decide between the three of these?

WE CAN'T. Because everything from this point onward does not deal in 'logical' terms, but in opinions and conjecture, and the quality of the Table existing in its own place. They are all successful because the scenario (the game) is resolved by the end of the journey. And that's the point. The rest is just window dressing to that particular aspect. To say one is better is to imply that your opinion -- your opinion! -- is better than another. Your experience might fall towards particular table, while my experience has fallen towards another.

If your table feels that the story MUST adhere to the mechanics then you play that way. If your table allows the GM to choose outcomes for scenarios that lay outside the mechanics, than you play that way. Logic doesn't have much to do with it.

Trust has everything /else/ to do with it. I trust that my table is where I want to be, and because we trust each other, we will continue to play in a way. If things need to change we will discuss it.

In my experience, Trust is the most important part. I've had enlightening powerful gaming sessions while the GM worked with another group and I had to hang out with one other person. I've had powerful gaming sessions where the GM had to create a rule on the fly, and then we didn't bother discussing it afterwards because we knew (trusted) that it wouldn't come up again. I've had powerful gaming experiences WHERE THERE WAS NO GM. All because we trusted each other that these things would work.

There are difference between experience and logic. And in this case the experience is defining your views, not the logic behind them. Just everyone /else's/ experience is dictating their views as to what works. You have had a different experience, BP, and that's great. Don't lessen our experiences just because we've had them.

Straw man.

I'm promoting mutual trust, you just demand that the GM is trusted, but he gets to double-check everything the players do. If the GM wants to be trusted to make rulings he should ask for and earn the trust.


That can happen. Is it likely? Mutual trust, not one-sided, is the key.

That's true, it's my taste.

My reasoning is this:
Back in kindergarten we played make-belief. Now we're playing make-belief with rules. That's what a game is all about. You don't need those rules, but I can tell you they make things better. You don't need rules as long as there is no conflict, at least. I'm a big friend of playing without rules, but ultimately conflict is not satisfying, because you always win. So you make rules and apply them always, in order to make a consistent game world. But hey, that's a different topic.



Uh... how is that? I'm in favour a superset that incorporates most possible subsets in gaming. I'm literally saying, every group can play as they like, they just have to agree on it. And the agreeing part is the baseline. Your comment could really be no further from the truth.

@Eliahad.
I'll come to your post, it contains some interesting points. I would ask you to expand and clarify your example cases:

- how is conflict resolved?
- how does the scenario play out?
- what kind of scenario was envisioned? Predetermined outcome? Flexible outcome? No plan?
(maybe the final two are actually the same)

Why does C not work?