| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude the problem with that is that someone doing that to "demonstrate they need to make a more useful character" or "because they can" is, that the person doing that is basically being a dick and causing problems at the table that don't need to exist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude the problem with that is that someone doing that to "demonstrate they need to make a more useful character" or "because they can" is, that the person doing that is basically being a dick and causing problems at the table that don't need to exist.
I'm not disagreeing with you there.
There is also the caveat that, depending on the situation, magic often has a higher (often much higher) chance of success.
A 5th level wizard with 1 rank in stealth and a Hawk familiar can send it to scout with +15 to stealth (or more, that's just 1 rank) and +14 to +17 to Perception, with a 60ft fly speed, a 1 mile empathic link and the ability to talk to its master on return. It can also have invisibility cast on it and cover literally 3 times the distance within that time frame, with substantially better Perception. Alternatively a thrush familiar would lose the racial bonus to Perception (so have between +5 and +12, depending on the master's ranks), and a mere 40ft fly speed, but instead be rocking a +18 to +21 to Stealth even without invisibility. And with an Int of 8, which isn't too much less than the average adventurer. He can also (potentially) cast a second invisibility and as a touch spell, and get the familiar to hold the charge until the first invisibility wears off, giving it a second casting remotely.
So you can send the rogue, who is easier to detect, less likely to find hidden opponents, slower, less able to escape if anything goes wrong (due to speed) and lacking any communication link back to the party (except at higher levels due to spells) at all. Or you can send the familiar, who will usually be more likely to succeed, and less likely to result in ignominious character death if there is something unpleasant waiting up ahead.
Depending on the party, the rogue might go anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that a wizard can, with far less investment, do their job better than they can.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would the wizard waste spells on traps, invisibility and silence if there is a rogue in the party. It is a waste of resources.
They wouldn't, of course.
But lets say you have a party of three already, a Barbarian, battle Cleric, and Sleep-Hex Witch. None are sneaky at all and the fourth player is trying to pick a sneaky character to play to complement their abilities.
By the current rules, he's probably better off mechanically picking a Wizard than a Rogue. And that's a problem with the game system, since that means the Wizard does a better job of the rogue's schtick than the Rogue does.
It's not necessarily a problem in any individual game, but it is an issue with the game system as a whole.
And, for the record, this is just an example. I don't think that Wizard actually is the best class to take the rogue role at all, there are many better (including the Eldritch Scoundrel Archetype of Rogue, though that does it by being a spellcaster from the wizard list)...but the Wizard is in fact still better than a non-spellcasting Rogue, which highlights the class imbalance problems in the game. Which is my whole point.
Or to put it another way: If another character can casually steal your character's whole schtick, and the only thing preventing him is the convenience of you doing it instead, there's a problem there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would the wizard waste spells on traps, invisibility and silence if there is a rogue in the party. It is a waste of resources.
You're absolutely right, it is a waste of resources. However, that means the only reason for the existence of martial characters is to conserve spell slots. That's the balance problem right there, a wizard can do everything a fighter or rogue can do, but ALLOWS the fighter and or rogue to do these things to save spell slots. Hell, a self-buffing cleric is much better in melee than the fighter could ever be. Newer supplements have done alot to improve martials and introduce new classes that aren't full 9-level casters but are still good and useful.
Personally, from a balance perspective I think the 6-level casters hit the sweet spot. That's yet another reason why the CRB is so crazy unbalanced, it's pretty much split between full 9-level casters, which are broken, and martials, which are useless. The only 6-level caster in that book is the Bard. Most of the existing 6-level classes, which are the most balanced in my opinion, are in newer supplements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or to put it another way: If another character can casually steal your character's whole schtick, and the only thing preventing him is the convenience of you doing it instead, there's a problem there.
Basically this.
There are enough other classes that have nearly as many skills as rogue (or more depending on certain class features). There are ways to get the ability to find traps and disable magical traps without being a rogue. For most other classes, you get bonuses to specific skills (for example Inquisitors get wis to identifying monsters and 1/2 class levels to Intimidate and Sense Motive). No rogue is going to beat an Inquisitor who chooses to focus on Intimidate, Sense motive, or Knowledge checks to identify creatures.
Beyond all that, a wizard often has some sort of spell they tucked away for just this specific occasion (by leaving a spell slot open). A sorcerer can do the same with scrolls and a mnemonic vestment. Often, these spells allow for greater measures of success than the rogue could hope to achieve without magic. It's a shame, but it's the truth.
I just converted my unchained rogue to an eldritch scoundrel and it's better for the party's success than ever before. Now I cast haste at the start of combat to buff the whole party and the wizard is free to lay down his summoning magic instead of buffing. Then I buff myself a little more and wade into combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, from a balance perspective I think the 6-level casters hit the sweet spot. That's yet another reason why the CRB is so crazy unbalanced, it's pretty much split between full 9-level casters, which are broken, and martials, which are useless. The only 6-level caster in that book is the Bard. Most of the existing 6-level classes, which are the most balanced in my opinion, are in newer supplements.
I think this is true. It looks like it's much easier to make a 6-level caster class which is useful without being overwhelming & has its own schtick, than to do the same with a martial or full caster. I can't think of one which is a clean miss in either direction, though I'm suspicious of the mesmerist (without actually having seen one in play though.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think somebody needs to start a thread on argumentation. All this arguing from bad faith is a serious problem. It really undermines the benefits of the forums.
I think issues like this get heated quick because they tread and retread many of the same points, and that causes frustration and grumpiness for many people. Also, many of these issues make people feel like their favorite class, playstyle, or experiences are under attack.
I think that the best way to have a productive discussion is to first link people to Jiggy's excellent post:
Dispelling the Myths: Caster-Martial Disparity
I just got to be the 100th person to favorite the post!
I should have posted this link right away, and it could have saved everyone a few headaches.
I'm working on my own "guide" to understanding the C/MD, and hopefully that will cut down on the number of misstatements about fighters sucking at combat, casters running out of spells, and the occasional, "if you hate rogues, just don't play them" type comments.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of balance complaints between classes stem from a position of the party being in competition with one another.
Might want to fact-check that claim. In my experience, the only time the subject of competitiveness even comes up (whether explicitly or implicitly) is when the anti-balance crowd tries to retroactively pin that motive onto the balance crowd.
I'm sure there's somebody somewhere whose balance complaints truly are rooted in a sense of competition, but ANY opinion has at least a few people who believe it; competitiveness is not this common, driving force that the anti-balance crowd tries to convince people it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think somebody needs to start a thread on argumentation. All this arguing from bad faith is a serious problem. It really undermines the benefits of the forums.I think issues like this get heated quick because they tread and retread many of the same points, and that causes frustration and grumpiness for many people. Also, many of these issues make people feel like their favorite class, playstyle, or experiences are under attack.
Pretty much this. I imagine a lot of people find debating disparity deniers gets about as frustrating as trying to have a rational discussion with a member of the Flat Earth Society or a conspiracy theory nut.
For their part, a lot of deniers seem to read any criticism of the game as "Pathfinder is a horrible game which is so unbalanced that nobody could ever have fun playing it!" and thus respond with the usual "No! Pathfinder perfect system! Paizo Devs perfect gods!" that turns these threads into a complete mess.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For their part, a lot of deniers seem to read any criticism of the game as "Pathfinder is a horrible game which is so unbalanced that nobody could ever have fun playing it!"
So this part is merely how the deniers are reading "any criticism", yet...
and thus respond with the usual "No! Pathfinder perfect system! Paizo Devs perfect gods!" that turns these threads into a complete mess.
...this part is totally what's actually being said and not just how you're reading "any defense"?
You are doing the opposite of helping.
Stop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No! Pathfinder perfect system! Paizo Devs perfect gods!
;-)
Why would the wizard waste spells on traps, invisibility and silence if there is a rogue in the party. It is a waste of resources.
To give the Rogue the ability to permanently sneak attack things?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since when did the game need to be balanced....[...]
if [...] one person is taking the spot light it is your job as the DM to "balance" the game.
Under what other circumstances is this kind of nonsense acceptable?
If I go to the dentist and he drills the wrong tooth, it's not my job to fill the cavities he missed.
If I go to the mechanic and he forgets to re-attach the cylinder head, it's not my job to put it back on.
If I go to a restaurant and get served raw chicken, it's not my job to go back into the kitchen and cook it all the way through.
If I get onto an airplane and the pilot doesn't know how to find San Bernadino, it's not my job to navigate.
If I hire a carpenter and he forgets the fourth leg of my table, it's not my job to work the lathe.
As soon as I saw Shadowlords' post I started laughing, not because I think what he's said is funny, he's 100% correct as far as I'm concerned, but the second you suggest the GM should have some control over his game, this forum goes into an uproar.
The problem with all your examples is that you're putting in emphasis on the wrong person. The person in the dentist chair (you) is the Player Character, the Dentist is an NPC. In none of you examples is there a GM to speak of, since they don't really exist unless you believe in a higher power maybe.
I'm about to say something that most people on this board hate: As GM you have to right to say no. Even if a player brings a a perfectly rules legal character to the table, you can tell that player "That's not going to work for my game". You have that control as the GM. The players either accept that you're doing it so everyone enjoys the game more, or they don't, in which case, find better players that will trust you as a GM.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...the second you suggest the GM should have some control over his game, this forum goes into an uproar.
...
I'm about to say something that most people on this board hate: As GM you have to right to say no.
You have a very inaccurate understanding of what the people around you think. I recommend asking some of those people for their thoughts, digesting their responses, and rephrasing it back to them; then repeating that process until they say "Yeah, that's what I'm saying". Do that with a few different people and see if your perspective changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Despite being a homebrewer and GM, my view is there is a certain level of "If I am needing to constantly change stuff or make judgement calls because the system is broken, why aren't we just playing freeform or a different game?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm about to say something that most people on this board hate: As GM you have to right to say no. Even if a player brings a a perfectly rules legal character to the table, you can tell that player "That's not going to work for my game". You have that control as the GM. The players either accept that you're doing it so everyone enjoys the game more, or they don't, in which case, find better players that will trust you as a GM.
Is that really contentious here? it's part of the "social agreement" that's implied when gaming, is it not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that really contentious here? it's part of the "social agreement" that's implied when gaming, is it not?
I'm about to say something that most people on this board hate: As GM you have to right to say no. Even if a player brings a a perfectly rules legal character to the table, you can tell that player "That's not going to work for my game". You have that control as the GM. The players either accept that you're doing it so everyone enjoys the game more, or they don't, in which case, find better players that will trust you as a GM.
I don't think it's contentious at all. I do think that there are some non zero value of gamers who consider the rules to be as important as the theater element. These people might value consistent application of rules in addition to a system that is internally consistent. These people might find highly variable character power disturbing because all classes don't exist in every game, causing concerns about whether a given group will have the means to properly overcome challenges despite being above the supposed benchmark for the challenge. Some of those things may have an impact on said non zero value of the player base.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite being a homebrewer and GM, my view is there is a certain level of "If I am needing to constantly change stuff or make judgement calls because the system is broken, why aren't we just playing freeform or a different game?"
Also as a homebrewer* and GM, I see where you're coming from. Personally, I've tried other games, but keep stumbling into two issues:
- 1) D&D is the common language of tabletop gaming among those I know. People play other systems frequently, but among the half dozen intermingled gaming circles, D&D 3.5 is the common system, and Pathfinder is an easy adaptation thereof. So getting an Exalted game together is tough as there's a small number of people familiar with/interested in the system, but getting a Pathfinder game together is easy.
2) I've yet to find a system that is perfectly suited to my GMing and playstyle. I've ran into some that are close (WEG Star Wars), but even those need a lot of work on the part of the GM to make a coherent game out of. Which means I inevitably wander back to Pathfinder (which is pretty good, if not perfect) and ponder ways to tweak it to suit the game I want to run.
*I've heard sentiments from a number of players massively opposed to homebrew of "If you can't just play the system as-written, why bother playing it at all?", and my answer is invariably: "Because no system is perfectly suited to all campaign concepts. The designers aren't omniscient gods capable of foreseeing all needs and motives of GMs and players and conjuring a system that suits. Because the GM and players should be capable of adapting parts of a system to suit their needs, and not always be restricted to compromising on their vision for a campaign/character to suit the system as published. Because I want to see what my friends can think up. Because this is a game about using your imagination."
So... yeah. I'm a fan and proponent of homebrew, both as a player and a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) D&D is the common language of tabletop gaming among those I know. People play other systems frequently, but among the half dozen intermingled gaming circles, D&D 3.5 is the common system, and Pathfinder is an easy adaptation thereof. So getting an Exalted game together is tough as there's a small number of people familiar with/interested in the system, but getting a Pathfinder game together is easy.
Fortunately my D&D group is open to trying any game system I suggest, but I have heard this concern on the internet soooo often.
2) I've yet to find a system that is perfectly suited to my GMing and playstyle. I've ran into some that are close (WEG Star Wars), but even those need a lot of work on the part of the GM to make a coherent game out of. Which means I inevitably wander back to Pathfinder (which is pretty good, if not perfect) and ponder ways to tweak it to suit the game I want to run.
This is the primary issue I've had with other game systems. Pathfinder is currently the game that matches my GMing and worldbuilding styles best.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have a very inaccurate understanding of what the people around you think. I recommend asking some of those people for their thoughts, digesting their responses, and rephrasing it back to them; then repeating that process until they say "Yeah, that's what I'm saying". Do that with a few different people and see if your perspective changes.
I wish I did, but I really don't. I say it in more negative terms, but it is completely accurate. I can take you though the numerous threads I've used to draw those conclusions. Take a look at all of the "the paladin falls" threads. People want a concrete set of rules to follow that applies to every single circumstance. They want rules to cover what should be the GM's area. People hate the magic crafting system, why? Because it requires a lot of GM oversite. Still not convinced? Look at how many times I've said "The GM can say no to things that are legal in the rules" and see the push back I get for those statements. As soon as I saw Shadow's post I KNEW he was going to get push back, sure enough, and with 5 people hitting Favorite too. Deny it all you want, and maybe you specifically don't feel that way, but the general feel on the boards is that anything that requires a lot of GM input is frowned upon.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd have a lot more time to write the plot and build my world if I didn't have to keep stopping to apply duct tape to the rules.
I'd have a lot more time to write the plot and build my world if I didn't have to keep stopping to apply duct tape to the rules.
Exactly how much time do you have to spend if you already know whats broken?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly how much time do you have to spend if you already know whats broken?
Well you don't know everything that's broken, and new material is always coming out, and the fact that sometimes the duct tape you applied peels off because you got the wrong type of duct type so you have to try many different types of duct tape and then when you do find a type that works people might decide to tear off the duct tape because they don't like it.
Exactly how much time do you have to spend if you already know whats broken?Well you don't know everything that's broken, and new material is always coming out, and the fact that sometimes the duct tape you applied peels off because you got the wrong type of duct type so you have to try many different types of duct tape and then when you do find a type that works people might decide to tear off the duct tape because they don't like it.
Yeah, that's pretty much it.
Plus, occasionally you get hit with new surprises from old rules. For example, did anyone realize the plane of positive energy is a source of arbitrarily large numbers of risk-free temp hp for undead?
One resourceful necromancer sure did.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is that really contentious here? it's part of the "social agreement" that's implied when gaming, is it not?
I'm about to say something that most people on this board hate: As GM you have to right to say no. Even if a player brings a a perfectly rules legal character to the table, you can tell that player "That's not going to work for my game". You have that control as the GM. The players either accept that you're doing it so everyone enjoys the game more, or they don't, in which case, find better players that will trust you as a GM.
He doesn't know what he is talking about.
When players GM's come in here trying to cheese the rules people are against them. When GM's try to act like dictators, and forget that players are actually people they get rallied against also. This is not a pro-player or pro-GM forum in my experience.If your response as a GM is "because I said so...take it or leave it" expect some pushback.
Also if your rule is what I call a "surprise rule" you might also get some pushback.
If you are a player and you trying to get the shield feat that only negates TWF penalties for shields to apply to "all" penalies, and your justification is "but it's RAW" also expect some pushback.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, occasionally you get hit with new surprises from old rules. For example, did anyone realize the plane of positive energy is a source of arbitrarily large numbers of risk-free temp hp for undead?
Surprise rules that everyone overlooks are always weird, like did you know you that according to the Core Rulebook can see spells if you meet an unknown DC?
If one abjuration spell is active within 10 feet of another for 24 hours or more, the magical fields interfere with each other and create barely visible energy fluctuations. The DC to find such spells with the Perception skill drops by 4.
The final line implies there is a perception DC to sense spells Before the energy fluctuations happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One problem with the forums is that people tend to take the most extreme viewpoint and present it as a common occurence.
Can a wizard replace a lot of the rogue's skillset? Yes, but doing so means he is wasting resources(spells) on things that would be more useful doing other things for the party.
People use the "it can happen" as if it is a common occurrence.
Another problem is that people see "it's broken at my table" as "it's broken for the game".
Instead of asking "Is Pathfinder broken/unbalanced*" it is probably better to list your problems and ask for solutions.
*You will never get a unanimous answer because many of use have no problem with the game. <---That does not mean we like every rule.
PS: As for a wizard/sorcerer/arcanist being able to take over the rogue or fighter's job that will depend on the GM. If he allows you to rest at will with no consequences then it might happen, but you can't depend on that. Being on a timer also means less resting time, so conservation is important.<-----No, I am not saying every adventure needss to be on a time for this to matter.
PS2: The rogue is replaced by several classes, and that is a rogue problem, not a wizard/etc problem.
Exactly how much time do you have to spend if you already know whats broken?Well you don't know everything that's broken, and new material is always coming out, and the fact that sometimes the duct tape you applied peels off because you got the wrong type of duct type so you have to try many different types of duct tape and then when you do find a type that works people might decide to tear off the duct tape because they don't like it.Yeah, that's pretty much it.
Plus, occasionally you get hit with new surprises from old rules. For example, did anyone realize the plane of positive energy is a source of arbitrarily large numbers of risk-free temp hp for undead?
One resourceful necromancer sure did.
It's sadly better than to send undead to a positive energy plane as a negative one doesn't do ANYTHING for them. Don't forget constructs too. They can both get an infinite amount of temp hp in positive energy planes.
It's sadly better than to send undead to a positive energy plane as a negative one doesn't do ANYTHING for them. Don't forget constructs too. They can both get an infinite amount of temp hp in positive energy planes.Exactly how much time do you have to spend if you already know whats broken?Well you don't know everything that's broken, and new material is always coming out, and the fact that sometimes the duct tape you applied peels off because you got the wrong type of duct type so you have to try many different types of duct tape and then when you do find a type that works people might decide to tear off the duct tape because they don't like it.Yeah, that's pretty much it.
Plus, occasionally you get hit with new surprises from old rules. For example, did anyone realize the plane of positive energy is a source of arbitrarily large numbers of risk-free temp hp for undead?
One resourceful necromancer sure did.
Got to love fast healing.
The hallmark of good design is the GM not having to say no all the time.
What is the metric of all the time?
If Pathfinder is the metric...I actually don't have to say no that much in Pathfinder overall.
HOWEVER...if that is the standard of what saying no is all the time...
Very few RPGs are clear of me not allowing one thing or another at the table (Whether they are option books, or other things outside of the core rules...OR where I houseruled something).
In that case...according to that logic...there has NEVER been an RPG with good design.
The closest you could probably get would be BECMI...but even that had a ton of houserules from me.
Fantasy and Dragon Age are good overall thus far, but have houserules from me.
How about a game deliberately made so that you HAVE to say no at times and HAVE to houserule...games like D&D 5e, or games like C&C?
Same goes for a LOT of the RPGs out there, even if they are single volume (the entire RPG in one book, like Fantasy Age is, or Fabled Lands, or Dragon Warriors...etc).
So, I gather from that...RPGs just have bad design and bad designers?
Because I don't have to do the same type of rulings in a lot of boardgames (don't think I've ever houseruled chess...for instance).
Or perhaps, instead of bad design, the ability for the GM to tailor the campaign to the needs of the players and the table is a significant boon and a major aspect of RPGs...rather than "Bad Design."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is that really contentious here? it's part of the "social agreement" that's implied when gaming, is it not?
I'm about to say something that most people on this board hate: As GM you have to right to say no. Even if a player brings a a perfectly rules legal character to the table, you can tell that player "That's not going to work for my game". You have that control as the GM. The players either accept that you're doing it so everyone enjoys the game more, or they don't, in which case, find better players that will trust you as a GM.He doesn't know what he is talking about.
When players GM's come in here trying to cheese the rules people are against them. When GM's try to act like dictators, and forget that players are actually people they get rallied against also. This is not a pro-player or pro-GM forum in my experience.If your response as a GM is "because I said so...take it or leave it" expect some pushback.
Also if your rule is what I call a "surprise rule" you might also get some pushback.If you are a player and you trying to get the shield feat that only negates TWF penalties for shields to apply to "all" penalies, and your justification is "but it's RAW" also expect some pushback.
I think what some are pointing out is that ONE (of many) playstyles promoted on these boards are player centric without leaving any room for a GM.
In fact, for some who are more GM centered in their playstyle...such a thing could even be seen as a crazy way of playing. One might even ask...why do they even play RPGs when they can get exactly what they want from a Boardgame. They don't even have to wrestle with a GM over rules in that instance.
HOWEVER...though I lean heavily towards the GM having the ability to make rulings on the game, being able to make houserules, and judgement calls, as well as being able to say no or not allow things (if a GM wants a Core Rules PF game ONLY...then they should be allowed to say NO to every other supplement like the ACG or APG if they want), I think this is a two way street.
RPGs are NOT boardgames. They are made in a very different way. I would say the ability to say no, or houserule the RPG is part and parcel of RPGs, and one of their strengths. Even Gary Gygax (who was known for writing articles that seemed vehemently opposed to houseruling) houseruled the HECK out of his homegame.
However, a GM cannot simply say no or houserule in Pathfinder without considering the players at his table. In Pathfinder, IN MY OPINION (if anyone should doubt...), it needs to be a two way street.
The GM needs to take into consideration WHAT the players want, what will make the game enjoyable for their players, and how best to cater to everyone's wishes at the table for a good game.
In otherwords, and this could apply to most if not all RPGs, require a social contract between the GM and the players on what will make the game enjoyable. A GM doesn't have game by themselves. Players don't have a game without a GM. They need each other to play the game, and as such, need to agree together on what works and does not.
It is this social contract which differentiates Table Top RPGs from many other games.
When we focus overly on the players (and say a game is broken because we don't allow the GM any control), or overly on the GM (and say he can rule anything he wants without concern for the players), we find problems where in reality, there probably shouldn't be any.
I think the BIG problems in pathfinder come when there is NO social contract between the GM and the players. Obviously, there is not a set GM or set players on these boards...and so different playstyles perceive the game differently.
However, I think one of the primary things that will determine HOW one sees the game, is dependant on how that social contract is working in those they are gaming with.
What is the metric of all the time?Why do you think there is a metric?
Because, unless we know what you MEAN by that...it becomes a meaningless phrase.
There is no game I say NO in all the time. I can assume you're reference is Pathfinder...but if that's the case...then logically, according to your statement...and how much I would utilize that in correlating "no all the time"...it would mean
ALL RPGs are bad design.
However, if that is the case, I would say what you see as bad design I see as a core pillar of what RPG design enables and differentiates an RPG from say...a board game.
AS my post above I hope illustrates more clearly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The hallmark of good design is the GM not having to say no all the time.
While I agree with this, I'd also say: The hallmark of good players is the GM not having to say no all the time.
I have the impression that (some) people who have a more GM centered playstyle tend towards old school style play somehow.
Most game explicitly reference the GM as the absolute law on rules, but 3.5 D&D did not
Tell that to the 3.5e DMG... which says the DM has control of the rules (and basically everything, including fun) on the very first page.