From the original thread. I want to continue the discussion here, and will come back to ask some questions and make a few comments.

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

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

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

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

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

This isn't universal. Some groups are, and always will be, groups of friends. But I'll bet karma that if NumptyScrub ever has to move to another city, within a year he'll have found a GMs table to sit at.

I feel like there are two seperate issues lumped together here.
- the first is "who should have the final say in rule interpretation, the GM or a table consensus"
- the second is rules consistency, everyone being on the same page (no matter who wrote that page)

Hehe....

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

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

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

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

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

More later...

And suoq, currently I am GMing, and I do the same as GM.

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

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

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

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



-k

I disagree with OP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a nature vs. nurture issues IMHO.

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

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

To me, it's not about which GM'ing style is correct, or even the correct definition of GM or Player, or what their rights and responsibilities entail. It's all about a sliding scale. Sometimes the GM has to do 70% of the work, sometimes he only has to do 30%. All depends on the group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I get you really want your argument to be superior, and you'll argue the semantics till your blue in the face-but I'm not going to be convinced or swayed. So I'll bow out with a I agree to disagree with you.

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

And you see that's wrong.

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

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

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

And seriously, I don't get what people are defending, here: I think they are defending their accustomed "rights" as GM to do as they please. Which is just plain defending a hierarchy that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

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

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

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

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

I feel for you. I really do. And I realize you've probably had some really lousy people at your tables over the years, but in preventing someone from doing something stupid, what you're really doing is preventing them from doing something. And I, personally, like to allow them to do those somethings, because sometimes they're really smart, special, and unique.

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

And I don't disagree with everything you say, I guess I should say that. I think you're absolutely right that anyone can bring the game to a halt. I've had it happen dozens of times.

You see, I don't believe you've tried at all, nor do you know any groups like that. You are arguing without basis.

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

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




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

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.

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

So, let's reconsider:
• The GM is a player. The GM is not 'just' a player. As others have said, he does more work.
• He arbitrates the game, which inextricably combines rules and scenario. You can't just wave off everything as 'well, that's scenario territory'.
• As a given, the good GM accepts input from the players.
• Players suck, and disagree, and what if the vote is tied? Fiat is totally unavoidable.
• The final vote is always not playing; for the GM or players.

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

I am gld we can agree that LARP sucks!



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



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

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

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

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



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



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




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



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




I agree. This is how we do it.



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

This has been an interesting discussion. I appreciate everyone's participation.

What's bothering me is the characterization of 'GM not equal' as 'GM is a TOTAL dick, all the time, OMG, and he gets off on it'.

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

There's a lot of wonky stuff out there. I'm saddened by anyone who automatically assumes I'm some power hungry piss ant who get's revenge for life by mutilating cattle. Honestly I just mutilate them because it's fun. Plus have you seen how they dress? Clearly they were asking for it.

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... However, if rulesets didn't give people a notion that they were more important then the issue would arise less often.

And I agree, for that I tend to say he gets the tipping vote, and can decide on stuff during the concept stage of the game - because you obviously can't force a person to GM something he doesn't like. However, usually GMs actually WANT to GM, so they also like putting in those extra hours to prepare stuff. I certainly do. Obviously that gets better if things turn out well and I'm successful in my endeavours.

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

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

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

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


certainly no arguments here .

Fiat is conflict resolution via GM whim, which isn't what I'm talking about right now. If the vote is tied the GM gets the tipping vote.

Ideal rulesets make this chance minimal.

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

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

Therefore, the GM should always have final say, and if that judgement isn't respected, sit at another table.

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.

It sounds like your earlier hyperbole was just that, then. 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.

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.

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?"

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Made my day.

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.

+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.

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 ) 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" . 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").

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....

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.

That's...... Entertaining, if a little bit (okay, WAY) over the top...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Honestly, blowing up the house could theoretically be okay. It's *literally* destroying the GM's game, though. He'd have to have planned ahead for that; that's just a realities of GMing issue.

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.