|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 13, 2012 3:02:13 GMT -8
Yeah I think we just call them middle class tossers in the wind swept north of the UK. They're the ones that started recycling only when it meant making a statement - they've no idea that the bottle banks etc have been around for years. They also do all this 'stuff for the environment/moral integrity for everyone' and it costs a fortune . . . When usually it doesn't do what they think eg: they'd rather be seen paying more for organic foods from a shop than just getting it fresh from the source (and knowing it is what it says it is).
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 15, 2012 11:31:31 GMT -8
Hi tentagil, What if the changes are not what you consider to be minor? Say I want to include the D&D 3.5’s ascending AC by hit location and I use a D12 hit location dice? What if I want to use the WIS stat for determining the order of declaration around my table, and I have AD&D 1e’s party initiative rather than individual initiative? What if I have fixed weapon damage and a mechanic that indicates a degree of success: multiplier of weapon damage based on the attack roll, natural 20 still double damage? What if I have player skill trump the limitation of stat dicing? What if I strip thieves of both disguise skill and disable magic traps skill and lower the now core class of assassin to 5 levels lower in “thief skills” as my approximation of the AD&D 1e class using a 3.5 skin? What if another GM says shooting arrows in a corridor is acceptable but I say it’s impossible due to arrow arc being too low? What if my Grey Elves are actually based on Norse mythology and Poul Anderson novels so that they cannot touch iron, suffer racial penalties and all have at least one level in Wizard? What about my use of racial class level caps? What if I make many feats redundant by saying due as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, and what if Opportunity of Attack is not in the realm of abstract 1-minute combat round possibility? What answer would satisfy you when I answer about my medieval fantasy game system? Are my Faerie Elves broken, and should I be chastised for it as if I do not know what I am doing with flavour? Broken Elves do not matter in my game’s system process. What if some player (DM, wizard, whatever role) gets his freak on by being disruptive to the other players’ fun? I have a system for dealing with that too. “the adjudicator of the game rules” suggests to me that the DM is rather not required; that he or she is not a player. It cheapens the role of GM, and it reeks of dysfunctional relationship funk. I consider an adjudicator to be like a judge as in your metaphor; presiding but not active in the process of pleading a case and with powers limited by a jury’s verdict. That’s a good enough mechanical portrayal of a journeyman GM familiar with the rules who goes through the motions. But what about the rules lawyers who plead and interpret the law for the adjudicator? Are they not arguing adjudication at your table? Your GM = adjudicator seems to have a pretty insular role: read the rules, know the rules, internalize the rules and adjudicate the rules. You’ve described Judge Dredd: judge, jury and executioner. It is more accurate, or honest at least, to see the role as GM = legislator (system). And I will tackle another connotatively-related point, GM = God, because it gets a bum rap and what I am describing could be misinterpreted as a spin on GM is God, which it is and it is not. I will agree to being God in my game if my players can be Gods too. And each God has his part to play, or administrate: GM has his system, Thief has his thief to interpret, Netrunner has his console cowboy to interpret, Investigator has his interpretation of a, what: journalist? Shamus? Scholar? Bereaved member of the family? And the balance in my interpretation of Asgard rests with the avoidance of the other Gods creating Ragnarök of my system. There is a two-way respect there and player agency is in each his own hands, where it should be. That’s the gestalt Aaron explains. You cannot have that gestalt with a God ruling players. GM is just a different, more energetic, role to play. Is it a reasonable expectation of players upon a GM, a human being let’s keep in mind, to competently “bang the nail” on the RPG system? Should not a GM be held accountable for the game, too, or is it all about a kind of jurist prudence from the RAW, like stone tablets from Mount Sinai? I wonder how many players are simply unsuited to be GM given what is really (and they know intuitively to be) involved contrary to the siren’s song of “adjudicator” ready in 10 minutes? I mean, if a GM just needs to know mechanics and RAW, why are there not more players queuing to be GMs? And of all the chiefs, among so many more indians, why are human CPU rules lawyers not all suited to be “adjudicators?” The world did not suddenly empty of Sheldon Coopers, did it? It strikes me such a person would be a 100% impartial adjudicator. No time to be a GM? Grab a module and start adjudicating as I paraphrase the sales spiel on my 3.5 modules: 10 minutes prep time ahead of the game and you’re good to go. If someone does not have 10 minutes ahead of the game to do that, then that person ceased to be a player. The truth, if we can handle the truth, is the GM’s role is more complicated than being a judge or adjudicator, as this forum and its podcast and the common raison d'être for all the other forums and podcasts corroborate. And, you know what I am going to point out next right? It is all anecdotal qualitative opinion being offered at these places. So where is your system now eh, Moses? (Sorry, I like to work in a little Edward G reference every now and then.) When players go into a game thinking the GM person exists solely to entertain them, good GMs leave. The concept of me being babysitter to my players makes me indignant. I am angry at being judged when I am playing a game, too, which should be fun for everyone. I am not referring to inexperienced players who need a little Blue Book handholding at the beginning. I am referring to experienced players with the expectation they need a GM for babysitter: this impartial break-it-up-boys-I-have-no-stake-in-this-game fiction. That’s like losing the “marriage due” upon marriage. Fuck that! Not likely. A GM = System has an implied social contract. I have an explicit social contract with my multi-cultural variety of strangers who are my players. I cannot reasonably be expected to spell out every rule I am going to rule on. Undoubtedly, this realization informs the advice in 1979’s AD&D DMG: start players at 1st level and rule the table (including choosing and evicting players). I have an agenda. What, should I lie about that to you or my players? I need to be up front with them. I like political games. I admit it. I like a good whodunit. I like to see my players work, I like to see their minds work solving the deadly puzzle of politics. I am not making puzzles for my own masturbatory pleasure so, you know, I give many hints and I am not adverse to cliché or players actually suggesting an answer much more awesome than what I alone could dream up though I take credit for that. I like engrossing games. I am not going to play a dice mechanic over role-play. My system limits the GM by the dice results. I dice in the open. It is part of my system. It is my process. Even if we do not know what or how I am going to rule on the next future decision, you get to trust my system/process. Ultimately, my definition of system will inform you, especially if you have never played, whether or not I am a douche GM. And that knowledge, that feeling you will enjoy my game or not, has nothing to do with games (you may term system) themselves or edition wars. Again, I would play Stu’s game, any game, because it is Stu and 1) I like what he has said about gaming in general and 2) I am willing to trust him. It may be that my system of game is not to your taste, and no book reading is going to stand in for knowing me. WotC will misinform you and that may lead to tabletop arguments, which is the Dark Side. Aaron gave you a solid answer to the ever present gestalt of RPGs, and I am not going to comment on GM-less games That would be the height of hubris and folly on my part. Besides, Aaron has that covered really well. I am going to point out that broken clocks do tell the correct time when they are released, after they have been play tested, otherwise they would not be released. My own broken Faeries work well in my system. Admittedly Y.S.M.V. (your system may vary) Philosophy aside I would argue that even in the 1e DM Guide there was never a point where DM equaled system. Gygax said that the only person who needed to know the rules was the DM, not because the DM was god or was the system, but because the the DM was, and still is, the adjudicator of the game rules. They are not the system themselves, they are there to interpret and implement the rules, making minor changes where need be to further the success of the game, but always within the framework of the rules. The DM is in this way much like a Judge in a court room. They don't make the laws, they aren't the law themselves, they are merely the interpreters and ones implementing the laws. And it is within their power to alter and change aspects of how the law is implemented based on their understanding of said law and the particular situation taking place in their courtroom at any given moment. Every situation is different and thus requires a different interpretation and implementation, be it in the court room or at the game table. The adjudicator, regardless of the title given to them, exists for that purpose. But they are not the system or the law in and of themselves. They become the final verdict because the players allow them to be, the players as a group have the power to overrule any decision the DM throws down, a DM who is unwilling to accept this has lost the confidence of their group and has little real power, again pointing to the fact that they are not the rules, that are not the system, they are merely acting as route for implementation and the mediators between what the rules state and what the group as a whole actually wants. Extending that out further to encompass games like Fiasco there is no way for their to be a single adjudicator, no GM or DM is possible because of how the game is designed. Yet in most cases these games require even more adjudication because they tend to be much loser in their rule sets, having fewer restrictions or requirements. They are an even purer form of role play then any traditional table top rpg out there because there are almost no barriers and by their nature force community role play because no one can singlehandedly control the story in any way. By the nature of the game design the entire table becomes the adjudicator, every decision becomes part of the group consensus based within the lose rule framework the game provides. On a separate note I still have to voice that mechanics and system are the same thing. Describe any game system and what you use are the mechanics because without the mechanics you have no system. What dice you use is a mechanic, how the math works is a mechanic, how powers, skills, stats, and everything else interplays is all mechanics. Once you strip away said mechanics you no longer have a system. Its like pulling all of the gears and cogs out of a clock and then saying its still a clock when in fact it has become nothing more then a paperweight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2012 12:19:57 GMT -8
I never said that the GM must slavishly follow the rules as written. I pointed out that the GM as adjudicator has the ability to enforce and change the rules to meet the situation. If those changes are minor or major is meaningless. In fact you don’t need the GM to make the changes, and the GM should never make changes without the consent of the players as a group. The GM is still adjudicator of the rules, regardless of if you are playing a published RAW system or a purely homebrewed system. A game system is a living document that can be altered as need be to allow for the game you want to play and the group you are playing with.
And I also don’t see how you see the GM as adjudicator is somehow pulling them away from the game, in my mind your theory of GM = System has much more that effect. The GM is just as much a player in the game as all the rest and by that very fact cannot be the "system" because they are working within its framework alongside the rest of the players. They follow the same rules (those agreed upon by the group), it is as you said simply another role to play in the group. The DM has different responsibilities, and in many ways more responsibilities, but they do not make them more important than the players. The GM is not above the players.
And your comparison of GM = Legislatures = system has the fall in that Legislatures make the laws, they don’t enact, enforce, or adjudicate the laws. And once again they fall under those same laws. As a GM you might make your own system, or significantly alter an established one, in that way you could use the Legislature comparison, but once you start playing the game that aspect has ceased to exist. Should you come across an issue with the rules you created and need to change them you’ve entered into the judge/adjudicator role. The quick change to keep things moving is the GM’s purview alone, but a permanent change to the rules I’d argue should include the players buy off in which case each of them shares the legislative role with the GM when that change is made.
You seem to think that being adjudicator of the rules takes away the responsibilities of a good GM, I’d argue that a good GM, and good adjudicator must not only know the rules, but his group and how to adjust the rules on the fly to what they do. Adjudication is not a black and white, yes or no, job. It is a constant balance of what works best for the situation and for the group. No system is static, they are living documents designed to be changed, evolved, and grown.
You keep talking about “your system”. Right there you are essentially admitting that you, the GM, are not the system, any more than I am, or Stu is, or any other GM. You have taken the system and crafted it and run it in a specific way that has become your style of adjudicating the system. What system you are using matters, because if you don’t know the system then your adjudication style is going to change. If you grabbed your group tomorrow and started them in a completely different system, from what you usually run then things are going to change, as you learn that new system, as you adjust it for you and your group it can eventually become your system again, but the system is still a separate element from the GM.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 15, 2012 16:25:51 GMT -8
I'd just point out that I think on a lot of issues both Tentagil and CC probably actually agree without realising it. It's that old conundrum of using different words and a slightly different perspective to describe essentially the same thing. The keywords, of several, being adjudicator and the use of the word system. From my perspective one cannot divorce the GM from the system in a GM based game . . . Nor can one divorce the system from the GM. The both exist interdependently . . . The existence of one is absolutely conditional on the existence of the other. To illustrate: the existentialist position on whether a tree falls in a forest if no one sees or hears it fall is that the tree couldn't (not didn't) fall because if it's not perceived (ie: seen, heard, interacting with the world it inhabits in some meaningful way) it doesn't exist . . . And some thing that doesn't exist cannot do anything, let alone fall. A system mechanic that requires a GM cannot exist as a system played without a GM and players . . . A GM and players cannot exist as participants in a system played without a GM based system mechanic (RAW or Houseruled) to validate that existence in turn . . .
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 16, 2012 3:00:47 GMT -8
Hi tentagil, Aaron is right. Our arguments do have much common ground aside from our shared love for our hobby, and I appreciate his pointing that out. I never said that the GM must slavishly follow the rules as written. I pointed out that the GM as adjudicator has the ability to enforce and change the rules to meet the situation. If those changes are minor or major is meaningless. We agree. In fact you don’t need the GM to make the changes, and the GM should never make changes without the consent of the players as a group. I would never, and I emphasize never, stop a game to have a rules discussion. And I would have a direct talk to someone who did try to rules lawyer leading up to and including excluding such persons from the group. The GM is still adjudicator of the rules, regardless of if you are playing a published RAW system or a purely homebrewed system. We agree, same as we agree above. I argue “adjudicator plus” but that subsumes your argument into mine. So, yeah, I agree. A game system is a living document that can be altered as need be to allow for the game you want to play and the group you are playing with. We agree. And I also don’t see how you see the GM as adjudicator is somehow pulling them away from the game, in my mind your theory of GM = System has much more that effect. Well, are you saying your adjudicator, like a judge, is impartial by definition? I say impartiality is impossible and there are many anecdotes about girlfriends who get rougher treatment from the boyfriend-GM to escape the appearance of favouritism. I also say that an interpretation is subjective by its very nature. I also say that people bring themselves to a game wherever they go, and are, by that very fact, partial. The GM is just as much a player in the game as all the rest I agree! and by that very fact cannot be the "system" because they are working within its framework alongside the rest of the players. I disagree. The GM role is to be system: to create the sandbox or the railroad; to hang a story around what the players do or to create a story world for the players to play within; to generate adequate NPCs to suit the players need and to fit the story world. I used my example in the opening to my last post but I could use another. Today, I go to a game all about rolling. It is painfully RAW but also house ruled for playing cards. His books never leave the table and are often consulted rather than players listened to. The appeals are to the books and not the person adjudicating them, and that is a greater barrier than any GM’s screen. You can say that he plays “wrong,” however you define wrong, but that is subjective opinion and his system is not: it exists in objective space. This gentleman’s game is the same brand name as mine. And since we play two very distinctive, contradictory styles, whose game is “wrong” now according to the popular (your) definition of system? Were we playing different editions, opinion could be classified as edition wars because systems are so different. Yet, many times in edition wars arguments, it has been argued it is not the game that makes one edition “so” but the GM. I must respect the difference in the system but I am free to privately or anonymously on this forum disagree with him. I am not free, according to how I play, to call him out at the table and argue his rules. I have been in games where that was acceptable and it is as entertaining as listening to nails down a chalkboard. Moreover, I do not plan to give a dissertation in defense of my PC at the university of 3.5 this afternoon. For me that is work. For others that is part of the recreation. His system is sacrosanct to him and I must respect that or I must leave. But we are both just adjudicating...? Consider he is adjudicating Napoleonic Law and I am adjudicating British Common Law in the same country…. The judicial systems are quite different. And here we have my argument for GM = system in the lawless lands of RPGs. They follow the same rules (those agreed upon by the group), it is as you said simply another role to play in the group. Agree. My table my rules. My table includes all players but one ultimate “supreme court” authority at my table, whatever role I happen to play: cleric today under Napoleonic Law, or as GM next week. The DM has different responsibilities, and in many ways more responsibilities, but they do not make them more important than the players. Disagree; but not for the sake of some personal conceit of omnipotence or power. It is a significant recognition to be aware of the importance the GM brings to the other players of the game. System does matter here. This awareness encompasses the greater responsibility you reference. It is not only awareness of the GM as douche bag. It is not just if the GM has difficulty with language (native or jargon). It is not only the weight of the GM’s table style or rules adaptations. The GM’s importance embodies all of it and more. It is an entire system that incorporates and processes the biological, intellectual and experiential make up of the GM that supports his game regardless of the bureaucracy from a box that may or may not lynchpin it. GM = System. There are some GMs games I will not play. I am not talking about bad people or enemies. I am separating the person from their conceptualized system to game. Adversarial GMs may be real teddy bears in real life but I won’t sit their table (without an ulterior motive, like sniping dissatisfied players for my game). Likewise, my system may be table flipping “bullshit!” to the person who fixates on the broken-ness of my Faeries or the lack of specific feat restrictions. These people may likewise be friendly. The GM is not above the players. The GM is a God among Gods. His power and authority comes from the power the other Gods bestow. And your comparison of GM = Legislatures = system has the fall in that Legislatures make the laws, they don’t enact, enforce, or adjudicate the laws. *fails (?) That’s my reading. Correct. The social contract at the table enacts, enforces and adjudicates. If my players cannot accept the social contract, or if I feel a potential player will either not enjoy or even disrupt my system or my table of players, I do not want them to attend my game. By the same reasoning, when I play in someone else’s system, whether the social contract is implicit or explicit, I maintain my player behaviour to the level of the table. I expect rules arguments (maybe lively arguments short of pugilism) every time I attend a game with rule bibles on the table but I do not participate in them. I understand that if I cannot do something it is because of the system (GM) and not because of the person adjudicating them. I won’t call A GM a douche in his own house no matter what my opinion may or may not be. And possibly, there is a story reason to explain why I cannot do something I believe I should normally do. A system needs patience and trust sometimes. And once again they fall under those same laws. As a GM you might make your own system, or significantly alter an established one, in that way you could use the Legislature comparison, but once you start playing the game that aspect has ceased to exist. Should you come across an issue with the rules you created and need to change them you’ve entered into the judge/adjudicator role. The quick change to keep things moving is the GM’s purview alone, but a permanent change to the rules I’d argue should include the players buy off in which case each of them shares the legislative role with the GM when that change is made. This is part of a social contract. And I will agree with you because I do not consider we are douche bags. What you’re describing is how reasonable GMs, like you and I, would see it. But what about douche bag GMs? And some douche bag GMs can and do attract players so that they are playing a game – much like the bear or tree in the woods philosophy exists when the fantasy is shared. In that circumstance, you are incorrect. I say that with regret because douche bag GMs do a disservice to the hobby. But my being willfully blind to the stories of GMs who practice a ham-fisted megalomania upon their players – players who come to RPG podcasts and ask the most soul sucking questions I have ever heard about the hobby concerning why they cannot enjoy RPGs – is not going to shine a light on the cockroach GMs. My definition does give those cockroaches the codification to exist; as they will whether I wish to see it or not. And only by accepting their existence, then we can say: yes, Virginia, there is a wrong way to play. Furthermore we can differentiate the irresponsible douche bags from inexperienced and maturing, responsible GMs. Also a GM = System definition underscores system matters so RPGs do not fall into interpretations of Monty Haul dungeons or milquetoast namby-pamby, “I-like-to-watch” voyeurism, “I-slave-for-the-player” GM shams and doormats. I am not referencing my own enjoyment at watching my players turn their wheels of thought on a good puzzle for an hour or watching the group working together as a group devising plans for 30 minutes to overcome an obstacle in ways I could not possibly have thought up alone and merely spectate on. I am addressing what I think we can all recognize as GMs who continuously grow in experience. I am not talking to criticize what actually enriches my experience as a player in the role of GM. I am recognizing it. No, I am doing more than that: I am enshrining it. And let’s not forget that douche bags enjoy GMing too. We just want to take away their players and wrest the hobby away from them. You seem to think that being adjudicator of the rules takes away the responsibilities of a good GM, I do. Or, at least obfuscates them under a game designer/publisher. Adjudicator is too limiting a definition. You’re not the traveling circuit judge. You’re The Law West of the Pacos. I’d argue that a good GM, and good adjudicator must not only know the rules, but his group and how to adjust the rules on the fly to what they do. I would go so far to say that a douche bag also knows (how weak are) his players and can be an excellent rules lawyer. This fits your argument from a douche bag perspective. But it does not call out a douche bag to potential players as strongly as GM = System: which translates to if you do not like GM X, try GM Y. Looking for a system? Look for a GM! And, what about the table full of assholes syndrome? Well, that responsibility, too, is up to the GM. If he funks up his game and/or system with a bunch of stop the game assholes then, maybe, you don’t want to play at his table with his system. I know horror stories about hapless GMs pinning a sign up at the hobby shop before they realized this player gate keeping was a part and parcel of GMing. Adjudication is not a black and white, yes or no, job. Uhmmm. It is a constant balance of what works best for the situation and for the group. No system is static, they are living documents designed to be changed, evolved, and grown. Like a GM? In fact, this paragraph would be great encouragement to a newbie GM rather than a marketing manifesto for a publisher’s later editions. You keep talking about “your system”. Right there you are essentially admitting that you, the GM, are not the system, any more than I am, or Stu is, or any other GM. Ok. How would you suggest I describe “my system” completely independent and devoid of myself in a meaningful way? I cannot package it in a box and sell it like a board game or a video game. I can write down some concepts and mechanics, certainly, as I did in the opening of my last post. But, if you GM “my system” then, frankly, it is tentagil’s system. And recognizing GM = System means I want to get to know you a little bit before I decide to play in your game. Related to my point is D&D Next describing in its sales pitch that the developers are making “your game.” The hubris of such a statement would be much more apparent if they were not engaging in the public relations stunt (I think it is to control the news cycle) to convince the consumer D&D Next is “your game” because of “your” (all of youse) divergent input (cacophony). You have taken the system and crafted it and run it in a specific way that has become your style of adjudicating the system. What system you are using matters, because if you don’t know the system then your adjudication style is going to change. If you grabbed your group tomorrow and started them in a completely different system, from what you usually run then things are going to change, as you learn that new system, as you adjust it for you and your group it can eventually become your system again, but the system is still a separate element from the GM. This is a good argument, I have difficulty refuting to be honest because it includes my definition of system within it. Look at this: GM = System is: taking the mechanics and crafting it and running it in a specific way that becomes your style of adjudicating the game. If I grab a new game (you call system) then the “GM rules” contract is in place. I can only imagine from my perspective this situation arises from my player request. So they are more aware of the system than the GM. If the GM makes a system mistake (according to RAW inconsistency or needs to correct a prior ruling) this can involve the player-to-system conversation (in plain English: do they/we dig it?) or it can occur for a few other reasons including but not limited to: GM-game experience, implementing a mechanic of personal preference, suitability-to-game world representation, observance of unhappy players or their polite back channel communication; game exhaustion and boredom; Aaron’s gestalt; douche-ness from player(s)…. The GM rules contract is in place to prevent Asperger’s fistfights. We want to play the game not discuss it. Unlike a board game or a video game, two market segments of home entertainment RPGs should stay away from, one really cannot separate the game from the players who play it much less the person “running it.”
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Sept 16, 2012 13:15:53 GMT -8
I made a spin off thread to talk about more concrete matters of players and mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 21, 2012 13:27:34 GMT -8
I have posted a comment HERE that makes reference to GM = System, as well as mentioning the importance of System in creating player engrossment, if any one who has read this far and found the topic interesting wants to read my further thoughts. the thing about GM = System is having player permission to rule. So many volumes are written about “yes, and” for the players to accomplish anything yet nothing is written by comparison about the same courtesy for the GM by the players. Much more is written about douchey GMs going so far as to christen guidebooks as rulebooks and warn GMs about the perils of GMing and house ruling.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 27, 2013 12:55:43 GMT -8
By my faith!
I found this while searching for something else, as often happens with me. I doubt I have to say this is GM = System because, for my eyes, this statement is so obvious. It may not be so for others so I do say it.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Mar 27, 2013 22:46:31 GMT -8
Eh, I still don't buy the whole "GM = system = GM" thing. To me, the system of a game is like the body of laws of a country, and the GM is like the legal system.
It's the legal system's job to interpret existing laws, to see if, when, and how they apply to certain situations, and to ensure they are applied fairly. But they don't usually make the laws. Yes, sometimes the legal system realizes that certain laws are no longer functioning as intended, and so they are revised or removed.
That's the job of the GM. They interpret the rules of a system and see if, when, and how they should be applied. Just like judges, GMs should strive to be impartial when applying rules, but sometimes mistakes are made. That's when the players get an "appeal"; they can say "hold on, I think you got that rule wrong" and then point to the existing body of laws (aka the rulebook) and explain their case.
Saying "**CENSORED**" sounds a lot like living in a country where a monarch is in charge of everything, including the legal system. They can decide what's legal or not on a whim, and as a result you're never really sure where you stand. Like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland. Her word was absolute law, even when what she was saying today directly contradicted what she had said yesterday.
So much like my argument that players filter their real life experiences through the lens of their character, different GMs may interpret the same rule differently. So the same game system may feel different at different table, but I won't go so far to say that "**CENSORED**".
That quote doesn't say "**CENSORED**" to me. All it says is "If your players trust you, then they'll trust whatever system you choose to run for them." As an analogy, the board gaming group I'm a part of here in Osaka has a convention every Golden Week. The first time I attended, the organizer put a racing game called Formula De in front of me. I hate racing, and I hate "roll and move" games. But to show my appreciation, I gave the game a shot. And it was fucking fantastic. Really, really good. The next time I saw this guy, he suggested we play a game called Elfenland. The box had an Elf riding a god damn Unicorn on the cover, and looked like it was intended for 12 year old girls. But I played it. And again, it was flipping amazing. After the game I joked that I would now play anything and everything this guy put in front of me regardless of what it looked like. He'd proven to me that he had fabulous tastes in games, and I trusted his judgement from then on.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 28, 2013 2:01:33 GMT -8
Saying "**CENSORED**" sounds a lot like living in a country where a monarch is in charge of everything, including the legal system. Your observation incorporates the legislative and governmental bodies that combine at the table of players where player gestalt is formed and normed. I believe I argued to my satisfaction against this very argument earlier in the thread. [And to my embarrassment I realise I did not simply point out what others have, in courts of law - most recently regarding the right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of birth" in Roe vs. Wade out in North Dakota, that the US Constitution is a living document subject to legislation, amendment and Executive Orders, not to mention a Civil War.... so no, it is a philosophy that founded the United States and shapes its government including its legislative house but it does not embody democracy itself or is it immutable to Executive Orders for example, which presents a nice segue to my list of leaders below... ] The prime rule of "Know your other players" often overlooks knowing your GM because the advice is typically aimed at the GM when, really, it should be aimed at all players and failure here is a shared failure that does not rest solely on the shoulders of one person. This is what **CENSORED** tries to remedy - partciluarly with gamers who equate systems of play to a collection of non-living mechanics or books (an indictment of the non-essensialness of a player in leader role). **CENSORED** includes GMs in a variety of systems like Kim Jong Un, Ronald Reagan , Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth Second Of Her Name, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as GMs from one system, the Canadian parliamentary, who demonstrate their widely diverse influence on the system. People like Pierrre “The Statesman” Trudeau, Brian “Airbus” Mulroney and “Honest Joe” Clark You have heard, though perhaps you disagree with, the statement: "the world is the GM's"? How the GM reacts to his/her world's first contact with PCs is as much a part of understanding **CENSORED** as groking house rules and rules selections from modular-built systems, like GURPS. But to equate GM to a kind of General Manager or franchisee, rather than a Master just does not agree with me. The GM does not work at your McDonald's needs be a T-Shirt. Now, who wants to play in a game run by Robin Williams? Our differences of opinion that inform our play of the game would not prevent us from playing and having a great time together in a Robin William's game, just like in your concluding story where your trust in one person led to your greater positive experiences with new games. And there is no discussion of a system separate from the GM in any of that. The GM matters more than system because he can be a douche in any system as well as its ultimate arbiter, world shaper, and dream maker.... Anyways. I did not want to argue it again. But I did want to provide that quote because when I read it, especially with my current project to explain my AD&D 1e system to a v3.5 player and, thereby, to create trust by showing my thought process behind all my rulings, I realised this is as close as 3x approaches **CENSORED**. Since it is mathematically highly improbable to write a rulebook that covers every possible ruling, even the Rules As Written GMs have to rule on the fly. It's part of growth as a GM to do it and handle the fall out if there is any. If the players are okay with **CENSORED**, the game moves on. If not, argument descending into bickering ensues at the table. All it says is "If your players trust you, then they'll trust whatever system you choose to run for them." I read exactly this too, only I do not separate a person from a system in a game as social as tabletop RPGs, system-to-system. My belief is in accord with my previous article for Douchey DM about that separation you take for granted is not even possible. We disagree on this point, and that prevents our agreement on the importance and reality of my “**CENSORED**” statement. I say who is your GM is a real and paramount concern from the start of a game whereas you separate people from the system they administer without ascribing any independent reality or importance to the person of the GM being relevant to total system/game experience – or, in GM-less games, the group leader who forms the group up and says: " Hey, let's play my game." My character, my attributes or features that make up and distinguish me as an individual, is a dynamic that will impact the rules I permit in the player-gestalt. [GM is a player, too, for 14-page TL;dr on-looker – meaning all players play a game rather than all but one designated in a worker role without benefit of preference or vote.] I trusted his judgement from then on. I hope my player is listening to this, and appreciates my letter because real blood came from my eyes in its writing to achieve exactly this result. [inside comment most readers won't understand – but pertinent nonetheless to the discussion here and the 22-page document I am currently writing to describe my system to my player.]
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 28, 2013 3:28:00 GMT -8
What I believe Hyvemynd is referencing the idea of 'The Doctrine of the Separation of Powers' inherent in any social system which draws on both the 'Magna Carta' and European 'Parliamentary Democracy' (whose origins begin in Austria - birthplace of a Mr A Hitler which is the height of irony). The Doctrine says that the powers of State, Justice and Enforcement are separate ie: Parliament can legislate but the interpretation and administration of legislation is a separate function of the legal system without influence from either state or enforcement. Enforcement is also separate, it is accountable to upholding the law not the wishes of Parliament, nor can it interpret the laws it up holds (yes in recent times the role of Police and Parliament has been compromised . . . usually by the formation of subdivisions like the now defunct Special Branch, disbanded because it was unconsitutional NB: Britain does have a Constitution despite popular opinions to the contrary, it is held in several documents, rather than just a single document, which are housed in a special room in Westminster and overseen by archivist who's function it is to tie all these disparate articles into a cohesive whole). Essentially it means that though the ruler can pass laws s/he is not above the law . . . if a ruling is passed then everyone must abide by it. In game terms this means the written mechanic is the State, the interpretation of these rules by the GM is Judicial and the trust between GM and Players with the system as rules and mechanics is enforcement (where players can leave a GM who breaches this trust or a GM can exclude players who do the same; it is also a function of the game progressing as agreed by written mechanics and GM caveat). **CENSORED** *could* be seen as a function of the interpretation of the mechanic but if the GM holds him or herself above those interpretations and is inconsistent or arbitrary then it quickly breaks down . . . the GM may be 'God' but s/he is limited by his/her own creation and bound by the same rules. The GM can modify the mechanics (homebrew) but this should be done explicitly and consistently and more probably still an interpretative function ie: the State passes legislation but it is modified in it's reading by interpretation of the likes of, in the UK for example, the Law Lords who make the legislation, by this interpretation, functional as Law. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Mar 28, 2013 4:24:05 GMT -8
....I challenge ALL OF YOU to make shorter posts....
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 28, 2013 4:37:45 GMT -8
....I challenge ALL OF YOU to make shorter posts.... Lol. I would have if I believed everyone already knew about the doctrine of the separation of powers - given most politicians don't I decided not to assume. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Mar 28, 2013 5:33:37 GMT -8
What I believe Hyvemynd is referencing the idea of 'The Doctrine of the Separation of Powers' inherent in any social system which draws on both the 'Magna Carta' and European 'Parliamentary Democracy' (whose origins begin in Austria - birthplace of a Mr A Hitler which is the height of irony). The Doctrine says that the powers of State, Justice and Enforcement are separate ie: Parliament can legislate but the interpretation and administration of legislation is a separate function of the legal system without influence from either state or enforcement. Enforcement is also separate, it is accountable to upholding the law not the wishes of Parliament, nor can it interpret the laws it up holds (yes in recent times the role of Police and Parliament has been compromised . . . usually by the formation of subdivisions like the now defunct Special Branch, disbanded because it was unconsitutional NB: Britain does have a Constitution despite popular opinions to the contrary, it is held in several documents, rather than just a single document, which are housed in a special room in Westminster and overseen by archivist who's function it is to tie all these disparate articles into a cohesive whole). Essentially it means that though the ruler can pass laws s/he is not above the law . . . if a ruling is passed then everyone must abide by it. In game terms this means the written mechanic is the State, the interpretation of these rules by the GM is Judicial and the trust between GM and Players with the system as rules and mechanics is enforcement (where players can leave a GM who breaches this trust or a GM can exclude players who do the same; it is also a function of the game progressing as agreed by written mechanics and GM caveat). **CENSORED** *could* be seen as a function of the interpretation of the mechanic but if the GM holds him or herself above those interpretations and is inconsistent or arbitrary then it quickly breaks down . . . the GM may be 'God' but s/he is limited by his/her own creation and bound by the same rules. The GM can modify the mechanics (homebrew) but this should be done explicitly and consistently and more probably still an interpretative function ie: the State passes legislation but it is modified in it's reading by interpretation of the likes of, in the UK for example, the Law Lords who make the legislation, by this interpretation, functional as Law. Aaron This is a really great illustration of how different components of the game entire contribute to the resulting game. I don't tend to think of it this way, but I very much see the correlary that you're drawing here Aaron. JiB
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 28, 2013 15:15:06 GMT -8
**CENSORED** *could* be seen as a function of the interpretation of the mechanic but if the GM holds him or herself above those interpretations and is inconsistent or arbitrary then it quickly breaks down . . . the GM may be 'God' but s/he is limited by his/her own creation and bound by the same rules. The GM can modify the mechanics (homebrew) but this should be done explicitly and consistently and more probably still an interpretative function ie: the State passes legislation but it is modified in it's reading by interpretation of the likes of, in the UK for example, the Law Lords who make the legislation, by this interpretation, functional as Law. The thing is you’re looking at a system of government as a static thing, already in place without actually looking at how rulers as agents of change have founded these governments historically. My argument is founded on my belief the chicken (GM) lays the egg (system). Magna Carta, American Constitution, Polish Constitution (first written constitution in Europe, modeled on the American) were not handed to a government body by The Grand Architect for mere ashlars to administer. Their “GMs” saw it was in their best interest of leadership to write these documents/systems. They enshrined their systems. Sometimes these systems were even twisted by later GMs: Roman Caesar, Cromwell, Franco, and Hitler just to drop a few big emotional names into a practical context. Now I am certainly not interested in a Francisco Franco as my GM but I might be persuaded to play with a Ronald Reagan . Who you elect as your GM will have a tremendous impact on your experience of the system you play as will your decision with whom you play will affect your game experience. Many people of varying degrees of credibility on the Internetz are saying the government of the USA is changing right now (without getting into the merits of conspiracy theorist) pointing out that the change being discussed is happening without any consent from a “system/Constitution.” My mentor, Edward Bernays, would be quick to point out the invisible hand at work in government were he still alive. So your Lawful Good argument isn’t holding water with me, pretty thought we might wish most religious fairy tales to be true. I also do not believe that a player MUST know every rule before he sits a table with a GM and I am having that struggle right now. Neither do I believe a GM must always and forever be straightjacketed by his own system/rules. Where is the growth in that? Not only does that concept dangerously void the concept of trust with a kind of codified mutually assured destruction agreement but it is nonesense: you cannot know everything. (Yep – the video game argument.) So let’s drop the idea that the perfect tabletop RPG system hasn’t been written yet because the perfect system cannot operate in a playerless vacuum.
|
|