Food for Thought, Basic: Pretty Please, GM May I?

[Josh]

If payouts are met and turn offs are avoided, you are doing well, like I say in the first post.  Improvisation (of rules) is needed less in better games.  And better GM's anticipate problems.  And everything I said holds true.

Good, so we're in agreement. We'll run into all the tricky and sticky territory about "better" games in one of your other threads, I guess.

No.  Or rather there's nothing tricky about it.  Better games are better because they handle things better.

But you still hold yourself blameless.

Is this a problem? I think it'd be a problem if I needed to be blamed for something.

The poor craftsman blames his tools.

[Cam_Banks]

No.  Or rather there's nothing tricky about it.  Better games are better because they handle things better.

If all of this were self-evident you wouldn't be having to post a dozen threads to establish it.

The poor craftsman blames his tools.

I'm not blaming the game, either. You're the one with the problems with it.

Cheers,
Cam

[Nachofan99]

I am guessing that you have not played many modern games?  This is much less prevalent in them.

Does D&D 4th edition count as a modern game?  It's the newest one I've played.  Shadowrun 4th edition would be the next newest.  In both of these games I have already encountered numerous sticky situations, corner cases, and needed interpretations on rules.

Really bad ones like, oh say, infinite wealth creation, infinite damage, infinite attacks etc.  Maybe you don't count them as "modern games"?

The GM adjudicates rulings, similar to a judge.  They look at case law (other rules) and make decisions based on that.  They rule on corner cases and interpretations.  All of those jobs belong explicitly to the GM and they are not fiat (let alone fiat resolution).

I was looking through a Shadowrun book just the other day.  It was regarding a character using their cybernetic peg-leg to attack people and if doing so would cause the character to fall.  The book literally said 'the rule is, it's up to the GM.' 

Yes the GM certainly makes a ruling here, and his ruling is Conflict Resolution, not Framing or anything else.  Would my peg-legged player rue the day I was born because sometimes he falls over and other times he does not?  Probably not, especially so after reading that the leg operates in such a manner - they'll either ask for a house-rule or accept the arbitrariness as an entertainment bonus because some people enjoy that kind of thing.

[Josh]

I am guessing that you have not played many modern games?  This is much less prevalent in them.

Does D&D 4th edition count as a modern game?  It's the newest one I've played.  Shadowrun 4th edition would be the next newest.  In both of these games I have already encountered numerous sticky situations, corner cases, and needed interpretations on rules.

Really bad ones like, oh say, infinite wealth creation, infinite damage, infinite attacks etc.  Maybe you don't count them as "modern games"?

4e is, shadowrun is definitely not.

What problems have you seen in 4e?

The GM adjudicates rulings, similar to a judge.  They look at case law (other rules) and make decisions based on that.  They rule on corner cases and interpretations.  All of those jobs belong explicitly to the GM and they are not fiat (let alone fiat resolution).

I was looking through a Shadowrun book just the other day.  It was regarding a character using their cybernetic peg-leg to attack people and if doing so would cause the character to fall.  The book literally said 'the rule is, it's up to the GM.' 

Yes the GM certainly makes a ruling here, and his ruling is Conflict Resolution, not Framing or anything else.  Would my peg-legged player rue the day I was born because sometimes he falls over and other times he does not?  Probably not, especially so after reading that the leg operates in such a manner - they'll either ask for a house-rule or accept the arbitrariness as an entertainment bonus because some people enjoy that kind of thing.

Yeah the game is poor.

No.  Or rather there's nothing tricky about it.  Better games are better because they handle things better.

If all of this were self-evident you wouldn't be having to post a dozen threads to establish it.

That is self evident as well.

The poor craftsman blames his tools.

I'm not blaming the game, either. You're the one with the problems with it.

You post a problem where you failed as a GM and tried to site it as a reason to do something poorly.  My suggestion is to try and not screw up in the first place.  I did not think there was anything wrong with the game in your example.

[veekie]

What problems have you seen in 4e?

I'd say it's their marketing department.

[Cam_Banks]

You post a problem where you failed as a GM and tried to site it as a reason to do something poorly.  My suggestion is to try and not screw up in the first place.  I did not think there was anything wrong with the game in your example.

I'm trying to figure out which example you think I posted where I failed as a GM. That's why I'm confused by your statements.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

You post a problem where you failed as a GM and tried to site it as a reason to do something poorly.  My suggestion is to try and not screw up in the first place.  I did not think there was anything wrong with the game in your example.

I'm trying to figure out which example you think I posted where I failed as a GM. That's why I'm confused by your statements.

The one I asked you if it was a personal example.

[Cam_Banks]

The one I asked you if it was a personal example.

Aha. You mean this:

The overlap is broad, because many GMs will extend their adjudication to modifying rules on the fly, or fudging numbers, or doing all sorts of things. I've done this many times. I do it usually as a means to simplify an irrelevant or boring encounter, moving things on to the real action. I've done it to save a PC's life before, offering an alternative to death at 0 HP. I've done it to make the players happier.

We'll just have to disagree on that RE: my being a bad GM.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

Aha. You mean this:

The overlap is broad, because many GMs will extend their adjudication to modifying rules on the fly, or fudging numbers, or doing all sorts of things. I've done this many times. I do it usually as a means to simplify an irrelevant or boring encounter, moving things on to the real action. I've done it to save a PC's life before, offering an alternative to death at 0 HP. I've done it to make the players happier.

We'll just have to disagree on that RE: my being a bad GM.

Actually it is more complex.  either the game is bad and as a GM you are fixing it, or you are a bad GM and Screwed up and caused this.  And your point was the game does not matter, as long as you are having fun.  Yet clearly you are fixing something here.  You were not having as much fun until you fixed it, why did you fix it?  Wasn't the fun you were having enough?  Add in that you still have no defense of the fiat resolution you used.

Just something to consider.

[Cam_Banks]

Actually it is more complex.  either the game is bad and as a GM you are fixing it, or you are a bad GM and Screwed up and caused this.  And your point was the game does not matter, as long as you are having fun.  Yet clearly you are fixing something here.  You were not having as much fun until you fixed it, why did you fix it?  Wasn't the fun you were having enough?  Add in that you still have no defense of the fiat resolution you used.

Just something to consider.

It wasn't a bad game, and I'm not a bad GM. I think the circumstances called for my adjudication of the rules in a way that improved our play experience. Were I to have had more time, for instance, or the players weren't rolling the dice so poorly, or the published scenario I was using wasn't such an ill fit for the group (or various other reasons) I could have just carried on without too much need for on the spot decision-making.

And I don't think the fiat I was using was quite the bugbear of fiat resolution you tend to go off about, since I had fallback. I knew the game stats, I knew the rules very well, I knew the players' style of play, and so forth. So it wasn't flat-out arbitrary decision without context.

Just something to consider.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

Already been over this, nothing new.  You were lucky with your collection of players. 

Says nothing to the fact that you could be having more fun, should play a better game or anything else.

The only thing this says is 'if you are lucky your players won't care, and you might have fun'

[Cam_Banks]

The only thing this says is 'if you are lucky your players won't care, and you might have fun'

It could be luck, or it could be something that happens when you play games. If you keep eliminating legitimate circumstances and occurances like this, of course you're going to reach the conclusion you want.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

The only thing this says is 'if you are lucky your players won't care, and you might have fun'

It could be luck, or it could be something that happens when you play games. If you keep eliminating legitimate circumstances and occurances like this, of course you're going to reach the conclusion you want.

I want the truth, the actual, so I am glad to see i'll get it. 

This situation you describe has been well established as happenstance.  You fulfill your players needs and do not hit upon the things that irritate them.  Great.

Re read the initial post, this is the standard argument.

[Cam_Banks]

Re read the initial post, this is the standard argument.

Your objections to Response #2 are weaker than the rest. If I were to see major issues with the game (like I did with White Wolf's Scion) I'd ditch it and play something else. However, in the 25+ years I've been running games, I've never found the things I mentioned earlier to have been problematic despite multiple gamer groups and different personalities, games, and circumstances. You should consider that "I'm having fun anyway, my players don't feel as if they're deprotagonized, and we've not suddenly discovered that this game could be better" to be a satisfying response and a clue that you should be trying to convince somebody who actually has a problem.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

Re read the initial post, this is the standard argument.

Your objections to Response #2 are weaker than the rest. If I were to see major issues with the game (like I did with White Wolf's Scion) I'd ditch it and play something else. However, in the 25+ years I've been running games, I've never found the things I mentioned earlier to have been problematic despite multiple gamer groups and different personalities, games, and circumstances. You should consider that "I'm having fun anyway, my players don't feel as if they're deprotagonized, and we've not suddenly discovered that this game could be better" to be a satisfying response and a clue that you should be trying to convince somebody who actually has a problem.

They are weak, but they are not on the positive side. 

What I mean is, there is no up side to that argument.  They are having fun, great.  But that does not mean anything good, only "it's not that bad."

Now you may see why elsewhere I push for "games must be awesome."  It allows me to make other arguments to a zero sum.

[Cam_Banks]

Now you may see why elsewhere I push for "games must be awesome."  It allows me to make other arguments to a zero sum.

I think "games must be awesome" is one of those statements nobody's going to dispute.

You know, this is kind of turning into the Cam and Josh show. Since I'm not in the business of entertaining people in that way, I'll sit out for a while and let other people chime in more often. Unless everybody agrees with you, in which case, this is going to be kind of quiet.

Cheers,
Cam

[Josh]

Updated, comments?

[emissary666]

I occasionally (read 50% of the time) run my games on fiat resolution. Why? Because 50% of the time something happens to my campaign notes. So, for example, I have my player make an attack roll, if it is high, it hits and some number below that becomes the AC and I slowly whittle it down to a defined AC. of course, most of my games are simply relaxed not serious games, but, in the hands of a clueless yet somewhat logical DM, fiat resolution does not completely damage a game. But, it is why I spend most of my time memorizing the books. Does this make me a bad GM, no, it makes me a clueless one. Thank Satan for monster manuals

[InnaBinder]

I occasionally (read 50% of the time) run my games on fiat resolution. Why? Because 50% of the time something happens to my campaign notes. So, for example, I have my player make an attack roll, if it is high, it hits and some number below that becomes the AC and I slowly whittle it down to a defined AC. of course, most of my games are simply relaxed not serious games, but, in the hands of a clueless yet somewhat logical DM, fiat resolution does not completely damage a game. But, it is why I spend most of my time memorizing the books. Does this make me a bad GM, no, it makes me a clueless one. Thank Satan for monster manuals

Unless I'm missing something, that doesn't sound like Josh's given definition of fiat resolution, since game rules are at least passingly referenced.

[Josh]

No that is fiat resolution.  It is what you should not do.

The game would be better if you were not doing it and some payouts, that your players may have, cannot be met. 

I am guessing you are playing 3.x dnd. My advice is to change to a game where GM notes are sparse or unessasary.

I'll post on this more tonight.