tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post8203127458479799763..comments2023-04-03T18:40:42.735+09:00Comments on The Caffeinated Symposium: The DM as "Sacred"Dave Cesaranohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454928720043301400noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-61092930952940868002014-08-14T22:23:43.249+09:002014-08-14T22:23:43.249+09:00"What happens when your players constantly wa...<i>"What happens when your players constantly want to try a new system?"</i><br /><br />35 years of play, I've only had this happen a few times; and mostly they continued to run in my world while seeking someone ELSE to run the other system.<br /><br />If I sell ice cream, then I'm going to be the best damn ice cream seller I can be; of course I still like hamburgers and pizza, but I don't happen to be in that business, so I'm happy to let someone else make those.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-29566199646329954402014-08-14T15:31:08.751+09:002014-08-14T15:31:08.751+09:00This is a very strong argument, however, for picki...<i>This is a very strong argument, however, for picking ONE system and becoming an expert, nyet?</i><br /><br />Hmmm....<br /><br />That's a damn good point. The problem is, I like different systems for different reasons. Some systems facilitate combat-heavy games while others facilitate more investigation or political sorts of games. While good systems can perform a variety of play styles well, I find that specific systems carry with them a kind of mindset that they communicate to both DM and player alike.<br /><br />It all comes down to preference, I guess. I'm most used to running D20 and White Wolf's Storyteller System. I've tinkered with Palladium, ran a session or two with <i>Numenera</i>'s Cypher System, and been a player for GURPS, Palladium, White Wolf, D20, AD&D 1st and 2nd editions, basic D&D (Rules Cyclopedia), and a few others. Being a player is much easier although a thorough knowledge of the rules on the players' part means the player can make better choices and maximize their options.<br /><br />But, yeah, you're right. It would certainly be most efficient to pick a single system and become an expert at it. The thing is, what happens when your players constantly want to try a new system? My players wanted to try <i>Numenera</i> because it requires less statting than <i>Exalted</i> did. Thing is, <i>Numenera</i> requires me to learn a new system plus a new setting <i>and</i> devise new places, people, and things with which they can interact, meaning that I still have to work my ass off to prepare a campaign. And because I'm not intimately familiar with this new setting, like I am with, say, <i>The Forgotten Realms</i>, <i>Exalted</i>, <i>Dark Sun</i>, or <i>Conan</i>... it's still taking me a long time to get things ready to run the way I feel games are best played--very freeform and player-driven with lots and lots of choices and interaction with the world. The less I have to make stuff up on the fly (from peasants and inn-keepers all the way to generals and kings) the more I feel the <i>world</i> is reacting to the players and not <i>me</i>.<br /><br />They might not care much about it... but I do. It's like fudging dice rolls. They think what they don't know won't hurt them so long as they have fun.<br /><br />There's a vignette I recall in the Chinese epic <i>The Romance of the Three Kingdoms</i> where this guy tries to bribe a virtuous official and says, "Nobody would know." The official responds, "Heaven would know, the earth would know, you would know, and I would know." That's precisely how I feel about fudging and also how I feel about making stuff up on the fly.Dave Cesaranohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454928720043301400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-43902039597048261862014-08-14T14:01:36.337+09:002014-08-14T14:01:36.337+09:00Ah, I understand. Please forgive the misunderstand...Ah, I understand. Please forgive the misunderstanding. I did think we were talking <i>too many</i> rules.<br /><br />This is a very strong argument, however, for picking ONE system and becoming an expert, nyet?Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-3740970936931619482014-08-14T13:14:31.466+09:002014-08-14T13:14:31.466+09:00'Bloat' becomes the convenient argument th...<i>'Bloat' becomes the convenient argument that supports personal bias and autocracy. Persons like this will cast around for ANY argument that continues to support their deluded justification for tyranny at the game table. ... It proves an individual who sees the GAME as less important than the self-aggrandizing ego running it.</i><br /><br />I grok most of what you're saying. Perhaps I should have been clearer in what I mean by "rules bloat," then. It usually takes me a while to learn all the rules to a game system that's new but after a few sessions I do. Some game systems have tons and tons and tons of options and therein lies the bloat. 3rd edition has rules bloat in the form of what I call "toys." <i>Everything</i> is toys. Compared to the 2nd edition sourcebooks, which had setting details, role-playing ideas, concepts, and only a minimum of crunchy options or new rules and toys, the 3rd edition books are primarily stuffed with toys, crunch, and rules adaptations, many of which end up being redundant when compared to other sourcebooks, flat-out contradictory, sub-optimal, or so over-powered that they make what's in the core books sub-optimal. This is what I mean by "rules-bloat."<br /><br />Perhaps I should have chosen a different term. Nevertheless, the lawyer will know all the feats, prestige classes, and optimum builds to min-max his character. While I really don't give a damn about that, he's free to do it if he wants, when the feats, classes, items, spells, etc. are so obscure and time-consuming (even if memorized) they can slow the game down or disrupt players' enjoyment.<br /><br />Actually, this has been a subject of conversation between my gaming group and myself. They've recently gotten into <i>Numenera</i> a very rules-light system. It's not hard to learn to run but I'm still learning it and ironing out some of the bugs in my own head from it. The fact that it is rules light means task resolutions are simpler and more efficient.<br /><br />I see rules bloat as an efficiency issue. I like options for players and I like easy systems that are simultaneously comprehensive, flexible, and adaptable. This is not just for me, however, because I've noticed <i>my players</i> enjoy efficient systems as well.<br /><br />Thus, if you think I'm complaining because there are rules for shepherding, shearing sheep, selling wool, etc., in the game mechanics, that's not what I consider rules bloat at all. (I remember you had a discussion about that in the past.) That rule exists for a reason. Rules bloat, I feel, is overly clunky combat mechanics that take five or six rolls to resolve a single attack, for example.Dave Cesaranohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454928720043301400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-20140100221156667332014-08-14T09:00:18.234+09:002014-08-14T09:00:18.234+09:00As you point out very well, Dave, the 'rules-l...As you point out very well, Dave, the 'rules-lawyer' emerges because the DM isn't trusted; that lack of trust leads directly to the player trying to establish the DM's legitimacy. The DM that declares the player shouldn't do this, no matter what the reason, is making the clear statement, "I am a legitimate DM because I say so." That really is the 'sacred' argument - and it is a nonsense pile of dingo's kidneys.<br /><br />'Bloat' becomes the convenient argument that supports personal bias and autocracy. Persons like this will cast around for ANY argument that continues to support their deluded justification for tyranny at the game table.<br /><br />If one compares the size of a law library with all the rules of all the books designed to support a single role-playing game, it is immediately evident that 'bloat' is a misnomer. It is an opinionated rationale designed to promote personal will. It demonstrates a lack of commitment to LEARNING rules, employing them responsibly, sharing their use directly and openly with the party and modifying them as necessary. It proves an individual who sees the GAME as less important than the self-aggrandizing ego running it.<br /><br />I would not play with a DM who made an argument like that.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-47868972976033088112014-08-14T08:50:53.113+09:002014-08-14T08:50:53.113+09:00Kicking your ass, huh?
The problem with Anon'...Kicking your ass, huh?<br /><br />The problem with Anon's argument, and indeed anyone arguing the 'rules bloat' gambit, is that it is never defined at which point the rules begin to 'bloat.' Bloating is an opinion, and most often an opinion voiced by the one player at the table that most wants to do things that he or she knows he can manipulate the DM into allowing, a circumstance disallowed by rules. The precise same argument is made daily by prisoners in the dock, who claim they're not really criminals, it is only that society has 'too many laws' that suspend their 'freedom' and deny them personal happiness. Literally millions of persons make this argument continuously about everything from wishing to smuggle liquor into the country to having to pay or not pay their cable bill.<br /><br />Actual 'bloat' only occurs when there are too many rules for the DM to reasonably handle and manage mentally - a matter measured by the DM's experience. Having played for a very long time, I manage at least a thousand individual rules in my head every session quite easily, having to pause and look up perhaps only 1 in a hundred, and that only because those are rules not in regular use. There is NO DIFFERENCE to the player whatsoever, because from their point of view I MIGHT be making the decision by rules or by fiat - but I know that I am very definitely making every decision according to precedent and previously considered rules. When I am not, I declare openly to the party that I have no idea how to handle it, and I often ask for suggestions! Thus demonstrating that the DM's word isn't final, the DM is better subject to a discussion and GENERAL AGREEMENT on the matter.<br /><br />(cont.)Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.com