|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, 3.X/d20 has encouraged a playstyle where if rules for something are not given, it's assumed to not be possible. This is because it seemingly tries to codify and provide rules for as much as possible...you can't do X unless you have the feat that allows you to do it. And as a result, if you can't find a feat or some other rule that allows you do do X, then the default is to assume that X cannot be done.
This is perhaps a natural extension of one of the biggest changes in playstyle...the fact that 3.X seems geared toward reducing the role of the GM to a mere accountant. These days, it seems the term "GM fiat" is a dirty word, considered worse than the most horrendous of muchkins.
So, how about you guys? What kind of gaming style do you prefer? I think from the above, it's rather obvious which direction I lean.
The style in the games I run and play in usually is along the use the rules as written but if we don't recall the rule and are too lazy to look it up or there isn't a hard and fast rule the GM wings it and that's that. While the older editions encouraged more of the GM fiat style of play, in an odd way, the more codified newer rulesets make it a lot easier for the GM to adjudicate on the fly. The simple rule of roll a d20, add some modifiers and try to match or beat a DC can be used for most anything. For most anything else, you either do some random chance the DM comes up with or he or she makes a ruling on the fly based on what would best drive the story - even if that ruling is happening behind the DM screen and the players aren't in the loop.
Mind you, I and the DMs I've played with are not arbitrary in our rulings. They go by the book if they know it and if not they come up with some rule and use it consistently.
L
I tend to prefer certain playstyles for different types of stories and different groups since I'm lucky enough to own, as my wife terms it, "endless piles of Star Wars gnome s---." Some of the biggest headaches I've had in the past was trying to take a certain game or game system and make it the "all game." D20 is a great example of the "all-game" mentality taken to extremes. Gygax himself thought that it was a stupid idea to have a single rule set for every style of play.
So I guess my playstyle is: find a game that works for what I, and my players want.
This is perhaps a natural extension of one of the biggest changes in playstyle...the fact that 3.X seems geared toward reducing the role of the GM to a mere accountant. These days, it seems the term "GM fiat" is a dirty word, considered worse than the most horrendous of muchkins.
I'm not necessarily a fan of how 3.X/d20 does it, but I like having rules for things at the table. Both as a player and as a GM.
When I'm the player, I like knowing what I can expect from the game. I don't need to predict the plot, but I like being able to predict how rules will act (not the outcome, that's up to the dice). When I'm surprised by rules not working because they're being interpreted poorly or by fiat I get annoyed and agitated.
As a GM, I don't need to control the game to the level that I need to violate the rules. Its illusion of control instead of control of illusion. As GM I should be more concerned with mood and setting. Rules that limit what I can do don't actually limit what I can do as the GM. My job is to inspire the players to do cool things. Rules that restrict me usually empower players. The more freedom they have, the easier it is for them to do cool things.
|
When I'm surprised by rules not working because they're being interpreted poorly or by fiat I get annoyed and agitated.
I'm sure you did not mean it to sound this way, but you make it sound like if the GM does not interpret the rules the way that you do, then that GM is doing a poor job...
It is important to remember that in most cases, the rules, which AS WRITTEN, tend to have MULTIPLE interpretations...
|
|
A GM who tries to control the game by violating the rules is a bad GM. A good GM can use the rules to control the game.
First off, to paraphrase what I said in another thread: The GM doesn't violate rules, he implements house rules.
Secondly, there's pretty obviously a line where there are TOO MANY RULES. If anyone really doubts this, then I challenge them to play F.A.T.A.L. Even ignoring the distasteful subject matter of the game...the system is utterly horrendous. I wouldn't wish such a system on anyone. It not only crosses the line, it blasts past it in an SR-71, and doesn't ever look back.
At any rate, where that line falls exactly varies from person to person. I've pretty much found my system sweet spot with Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules and the Call of Cthulhu implementation of Basic Roleplaying. I'd be willing to wager that your sweet spot is a lot nearer the "rules-heavy" side of the equation.
GM's can violate rules, the players, and the game itself. I have some post that show horrible GM'ing on these boards.
Violating a rule, and bending or changing a rule are not the same thing however.
When I'm surprised by rules not working because they're being interpreted poorly or by fiat I get annoyed and agitated.I'm sure you did not mean it to sound this way, but you make it sound like if the GM does not interpret the rules the way that you do, then that GM is doing a poor job...
It is important to remember that in most cases, the rules, which AS WRITTEN, tend to have MULTIPLE interpretations...
Thank you for adding different meaning and consequences to what I said. This is a short paragraph, not meant to encapsulate my entire gaming philosophy or experience and indeed does not do so. When a GM changes the rules on me without warning, or interprets them poorly, I am allowed to react.
I like predictability in my games. Again... not the plot, not the outcome, just in the mechanics of how the rules work. Both poor interpretation and fiat can violate that predictability. That is the context of my statement. Taking it out of that context will make it mean something else.
Also, this is a reason I tend to dislike d20 systems and other complex games. Too many rules create texts in multiple places in the books that make interpretation more difficult. I enjoy tactical games, but I find myself drawn more and more to simpler rules systems because of this. The mechanics of the rules are less ambigious and interpretation of the results is explicitly assigned to someone as part of the games mechanics.
|
|
Thank you for adding different meaning and consequences to what I said.
The part of your statement that caught my eye and why I responded the way I did, was repeated by you again...
interprets them poorly
This is what, to me, makes you sound as if you believe that your interpretation is the correct one. Why is the GM's interpretation of the rules the poorer one and not yours?
His interpretation also encapsulates his gaming philosophy and/or experience, so to him, this is how he reads a given rule. So just because he sees (and thusly, interprets) a rule differently than you does not make his interpretation poor despite any conflict that interpretation has when held against yours...
Thank you for adding different meaning and consequences to what I said.The part of your statement that caught my eye and why I responded the way I did, was repeated by you again...
interprets them poorlyThis is what, to me, makes you sound as if you believe that your interpretation is the correct one. Why is the GM's interpretation of the rules the poorer one and not yours?
His interpretation also encapsulates his gaming philosophy and/or experience, so to him, this is how he reads a given rule. So just because he sees (and thusly, interprets) a rule differently than you does not make his interpretation poor despite any conflict that interpretation has when held against yours...
Are you saying that GM's are by their very nature infallible? That they cannot read rules incorrectly? Are you telling me that I have never encountered this in my nearly 20 years of gaming?
I have seen GM's not be aware of text, and then refuse to acknowledge that text, even if presented with the text in a very quick manner. I am telling you that I dislike this experience in my games. I'm not sure what there is to argue against. Either you're telling me this has never happened to me, which it has, or you're telling me I'm wrong for disliking it.
The title of the thread is about "preferences". I'm not sure why you're arguing with me about what my preferences are. I also dislike dropping hammers on my toes. Is that the intended use of a hammer? No. It it the hammer's fault? No. It still happens, and I still don't like it.
This is one of the reasons I like simplified gaming rules. It's less likely for errors to happen and they are more easily correct. Again, this is my preference.
Just because one GM was wrong once, does not mean all GM's are wrong all the time. Please stop interpreting my posts to mean that. Heck, sometimes I'm the person who interprets poorly. I don't like that either.
|
|
Are you saying that GM's are by their very nature infallible?
Something is getting lost in the translation here...
I never said GM's are infallible. I DID however say that to me, your posts (again, to me) came across as you being infallible (and as I said in my first post, I did not think that was your intention). But twice you said that you did not like it when a GM interprets a rule poorly...
I submit to you, that most of the rules in D&D 3.x and PF are WIDE open to interpretation, and that no one interpretation is any poorer than another...
That has been the be-all and end-all of these past couple of posts. NOT that a GM (or player) is infallible, nor that anyone's opinion is incorrect...
In my opinion, 3.X/d20 has encouraged a playstyle where if rules for something are not given, it's assumed to not be possible. This is because it seemingly tries to codify and provide rules for as much as possible...you can't do X unless you have the feat that allows you to do it. And as a result, if you can't find a feat or some other rule that allows you do do X, then the default is to assume that X cannot be done.
This is perhaps a natural extension of one of the biggest changes in playstyle...the fact that 3.X seems geared toward reducing the role of the GM to a mere accountant. These days, it seems the term "GM fiat" is a dirty word, considered worse than the most horrendous of muchkins.
So, how about you guys? What kind of gaming style do you prefer? I think from the above, it's rather obvious which direction I lean.
I'll admit this is one of things that irked me a lot switching from 2nd Edition to Pathfinder.
In 2E our games had a more... freeflowing feel to them. You thought up something cool to do, then made a judgement call on how to simulate it. In Pathfinder, there's probably a rule for that... and like you said, the answer is usually 'nope, you didn't get a feat for that..'
We've gotten a LOT of fun out of Pathfinder so far, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't prefer the more creative less rule-heavy version of the game
Are you saying that GM's are by their very nature infallible?Something is getting lost in the translation here...
I never said GM's are infallible. I DID however say that to me, your posts (again, to me) came across as you being infallible (and as I said in my first post, I did not think that was your intention). But twice you said that you did not like it when a GM interprets a rule poorly...
I submit to you, that most of the rules in D&D 3.x and PF are WIDE open to interpretation, and that no one interpretation is any poorer than another...
That has been the be-all and end-all of these past couple of posts. NOT that a GM (or player) is infallible, nor that anyone's opinion is incorrect...
I am talking about the social contract of the table. I like being able to know what I can expect from the rules of the system we are using and I don't like having the rug pulled out from under me.
You took this to mean "I don't like GM's that have opinions" and how I was wrong.
|
I submit to you, that most of the rules in D&D 3.x and PF are WIDE open to interpretation, and that no one interpretation is any poorer than another...
I'm gonna have to dispute this statement just a little bit. The rules are wide open to interpretation, and there are a lot of different interpretations that can be made that are more or less equally good-- but at the same time, sometimes a GM can make a really bone-headed call... and sometimes a GM may inflict a really poor interpretation of a particular rule on his/her players... put another way, not all interpretations are equal.
However, I think what Irontruth may be getting at, is that he'd like consistency in interpretations in the games he's in... one example of something that I'd call a "poor" interpretation, is when a GM constantly changes his interpretation of a particular rule, especially when he's clearly doing it to favor a particular character, or NPC, or enemy. Once you've set what the table interpretation, or house-rule, or whatever adjucation of a particular situation is, you should stand by it when the same thing comes up again in game.
(Irontruth-- please correct me if I'm not representing your stated ideas accurately)
|
|
You took this to mean "I don't like GM's that have opinions" and how I was wrong.
No, I just wanted to point out that the rules of 3.x/PF are wide open to personal interpretation and that no single interpretation is wrong or poor...
I'm not sure I can make the intent of my past few posts here any clearer...
I'll admit this is one of things that irked me a lot switching from 2nd Edition to Pathfinder.In 2E our games had a more... freeflowing feel to them. You thought up something cool to do, then made a judgement call on how to simulate it. In Pathfinder, there's probably a rule for that... and like you said, the answer is usually 'nope, you didn't get a feat for that..'
We've gotten a LOT of fun out of Pathfinder so far, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't prefer the more creative less rule-heavy version of the game
There are a lot of new games that try to get back to what AD&D was, while still utilizing the "technology" of newer games.
Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a pretty good retro clone, though the art and direction of the game can be a bit dark and graphic for some people. At my brief thumbing through, it's a lot like a very cleaned up version.
Dungeon World is a much newer style game, but designed to help capture that feel of gaming. It's designed to play fast and loose, combat feels more like a conversation describing combat, instead of a tactical game.
|
|
one example of something that I'd call a "poor" interpretation, is when a GM constantly changes his interpretation of a particular rule, especially when he's clearly doing it to favor a particular character, or NPC, or enemy.
But that's not an interpretation of the rules, that's a redefining of one's interpretation. There's a difference...
Your example is of an inconsistent GM who is either unsure of his own rulings or just a poor GM, not a GM who simply reads a rule and interprets it differently than you do...
You took this to mean "I don't like GM's that have opinions" and how I was wrong.No, I just wanted to point out that the rules of 3.x/PF are wide open to personal interpretation and that no single interpretation is wrong or poor...
I'm not sure I can make the intent of my past few posts here any clearer...
Sure.
Also, not all opinions are created equal. Some opinions, are in fact wrong. Some interpretations are wrong, either due to incomplete information or misunderstanding facts. You're point does nothing to diminish my experiences or preferences.
Here's an Actual Play example from this week.
The rogue in the group had spider climb. He was on the underside of a pier (giving cover) sneaking up on people. He also had the Fast Stealth talent.
The GM's opinion, was that he could not use stealth to double move at full speed without a penalty (he could only use one move action per round, he couldn't use his standard action to also move stealthily).
To avoid argument, we all accepted the GM's opinion and moved on. IMO, it still detracted from the game. There are a lot of moving parts to that action and he didn't grasp them all. After the session, he sent out an e-mail saying he had been wrong and it'd be fixed in future sessions. Overall, it was a great session, but it would have been slightly better without that issue.
|
|
But that's not an interpretation of the rules, that's a redefining of one's interpretation. There's a difference...Your example is of an inconsistent GM who is either unsure of his own rulings or just a poor GM, not a GM who simply reads a rule and interprets it differently than you do...
Hmmm... you're right about the example I actually used. But there is still such a thing as a "poor" interpretation of the rules, in addition to the more usual differences of opinion in interpretation.
I think I can actually point to one over on the "why would anyone summon a demon" thread-- a certain interpretation of 'charm' spells that exceedingly stretches the way the text says 'charms' work. Now, it's an interpretation, and it involves a judgement call on just what does the language mean... but there are some interpretations that, when you look at the story text, should hit the reasonable person as being a "no f'ing way can you get them to do that just on your say-so, charmed or not..."
You took this to mean "I don't like GM's that have opinions" and how I was wrong.No, I just wanted to point out that the rules of 3.x/PF are wide open to personal interpretation and that no single interpretation is wrong or poor...
I'm not sure I can make the intent of my past few posts here any clearer...
I think everyone has a right to an interpretation of their own, but I would not say an interpretation can't be wrong or poor. I have been wrong enough times to know that, and I have seen enough personal bias in a debate to know the interpretation was not even close to how it was written.
PS:Yeah I know some of the rules are hard to interpret especially if you are new, but sometimes...
|
|
The GM's opinion, was that he could not use stealth to double move at full speed without a penalty (he could only use one move action per round, he couldn't use his standard action to also move stealthily).
This sounds like an example of a GM who did not know all of the rules. Granted, I was not there, but from what you said, it sounds like he made a judgment call instead of taking the time to read all of the pertinent rules. If this was the case (and I'm just going on how I interpreted what you wrote), then it was not a poor interpretation of the rules, it was an example of a GM not being fully versed in the rules (a big difference)...
|
|
I have seen enough personal bias in a debate to know the interpretation was not even close to how it was written.
Sure, there is personal bias, and there is a slippery slope of letting one's personal bias interfere with the game. But if personal interpretation is just that, personal, and a rule is open to interpretation, then how can that interpretation be wrong?
I think what happens more often than not, is that personal bias gets in the way of how we read the rules. And if we see a rule as one thing, and someone else sees the same rule as something completely different (and therefore getting in the way of our fun), then that other person's interpretation is wrong or poor...
Note that I never once said I was somehow above this (because I can be and have been guilty of this myself)...
I'm just trying to draw attention to it and point it out for what it often times is...
An interpretation can be wrong when it does not match the intent. As an example if you say that you like women, and in my mind it reads that you said you hate men then my interpretation is wrong.
I think I see what you are saying. Just to be clear when I say interpretation I am saying "an understanding of the intent of the rule" can be incorrect.
You seem to be coming at it from a philosophical point that while I understand is hard for me to express without having it taken the wrong way.
The GM's opinion, was that he could not use stealth to double move at full speed without a penalty (he could only use one move action per round, he couldn't use his standard action to also move stealthily).This sounds like an example of a GM who did not know all of the rules. Granted, I was not there, but from what you said, it sounds like he made a judgment call instead of taking the time to read all of the pertinent rules. If this was the case (and I'm just going on how I interpreted what you wrote), then it was not a poor interpretation of the rules, it was an example of a GM not being fully versed in the rules (a big difference)...
It is a poor interpretation of the rules. To interpret the rules is to explain their meaning. That is the definition of the word interpret.
in·ter·pret/inˈtərprit/
Verb:
Explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions): "interpret the evidence".
To do so poorly, would mean that you explain the meaning incorrectly or incompletely.
You are correct in that there is no "wrong" way to play the game. In that I agree, a group can decide to change/alter/interpret a rule however it wants, and if the group is having fun, it is correct. But that isn't what I was talking about. So to quote my post and tell me I'm wrong for disliking something seems to not get your own point almost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience has been that DMs tend to interpret rules as intended, while players interpret rules as written in order to gain an advantage.
ALL cases of what Irontruth refers to as "poor DM interpretation" I've seen were a result of the DM not knowing the rules as well as the players.
As an interesting aside,
|
|
My experience has been that DMs tend to interpret rules as intended, while players interpret rules as written in order to gain an advantage.
Exactly...
And when this occurs, what usually happens is that one or both parties feel that the other has interpreted the rules poorly...
And that is what is wrong, because neither party's interpretation is incorrect; it's just that they both have read the rules differently...
My experience has been that DMs tend to interpret rules as intended, while players interpret rules as written in order to gain an advantage.
ALL cases of what Irontruth refers to as "poor DM interpretation" I've seen were a result of the DM not knowing the rules as well as the players.
As an interesting aside,
It seems to me that the DMs who understand the rules best tend to be DMs that are good with numbers and find rules interactions interesting, but tend to be less creative and run more tactical but less interesting games. On the other hand, DMs that are ultra-creative and run the most flavorful games tend to dislike numbers and rules minutae, so they have a poor understanding of rules and run more frustrating games.
I have had GM's interpret rules to gain advantage as well. Trying to shift to the narrowest definition possible because they feel they need to hold a player back from doing something.
Not knowing the rules will directly lead to "poor DM interpretation". Remember, the definition of the word "interpret" means "to explain". I am not assigning some new and mystical definition to the word, I am using it exactly as it is defined. When a GM says "It works like this..." they are interpreting.
As an aside, this thread is about gaming preferences. d20 3.X does benefit from the traits that you list in a GM. There are other game systems that do not. The large text that is Pathfinder covers a wide variety of situations, but at the same time, each situation has its own rules and memorizing and referencing all of them in play can be difficult. This is both a strength and a weakness of the game system.
I enjoy Pathfinder, but it does not scratch all my RPG itches these days. I find it works well with some of my groups and that other games work better with others.
GM fiat is only as good as the GM. It can work fine, but if you get a tyrant it's a licence to basically railroad pcs to where the GM wants them. (I suffered for a year recently under a dictatorial GM, and eventually left the game because I didn't feel he played fair. I usually GM.)
I like the world to work the same for everyone - pcs and npcs. The rules are there ultimately to make things fair, as a player they can be a defence as well as a potential limiting factor. But if the GM can just over-rule anything he chooses without good cause it can ruin the whole game.
Getting ahead of the GM's plans is one of the pleasures of roleplaying, doing unexpected things, or being very lucky with the dice, these should not be ignored by the GM 'because it's not what I wanted them to do'.
Rule changes and new rules are best worked out and shared/agreed before play, rather than during in my experience.
Oh sure, I'm not advocating slavish rules mongering, or worse yet rules lawyering, just that I prefer rpgs to a joint effort rather than the GM forcing pcs around 'his story', 'his way', like they were rats in a maze. Rules do help with that, used right they help ground the game, they also can take the subjectivity out of stuff like 'did I convince the guard to look behind himself', and if you're lucky and play a good system can even encourage roleplaying - without reducing stuff to GM's decision.
Mind you, I do like a good story in there too. I just think the middle way through these issues is best - don't stamp on pcs with fiat if they take the story in an unexpected direction, or kill your pet npc or whatever. Roll with it, make up a new better, bigger npc, often the unexpected is as much fun for the GM as the players.
My players forced me to take down my GM-screen a few years back btw, in a player revolt ;-), so I roll all my rolls unshielded as a GM these days. So I don't get away with any fudging, like I used to. This works both ways of course, but I can see why my players called for it.
Why should a GM get to fudge rolls at a whim. It's a game, let the dice fall where they may.
Sure, and there's nothing wrong with being smart. Indeed as a GM it's essential. Believe me, I've been playing with one player since we were 12, a loong time ago, so he can spot my moves if I'm not super-poker-faced. It's always a great feeling on slipping one past his guard - he has developed almost supernatural abilities in spotting traps and GM-snares if I'm not careful.
I'm not saying I give my players an easy ride.
I'm saying 'hard, but fair'.
I used to fudge in favour too, but I do now think that diminishes the pc's successes. Better to let the bones roll, if someone dies, then it was a good day to die.
EDIT - I don't actually class - letting the players weakenesses catch them out as 'railroading'. They don't 'have' to fall for the trap, so they ain't on rails. Railroading is when, whatever you try or want to do as a player, the GM won't allow it and forces you, even against your will onto a set path.