Players and enemies competing on the same terms

[Kaftan Barlast]

At Uni I have this teacher who is obsessed about gameplay, and after a year one cant avoid being influenced. A few years ago, I thought it was ok for the GM to bend the rules in favour of his npc's, villains, monsters etc. but now Ive completely changed my mind. The thesis is this:

 

 

RPG's are games, and in a game it is vital that all involved parties play by the same rules in order for it to be fair and enjoyable.

 

 

A RPG like D&D 3.5 have rules that are constructed, balanced and meant to be used. The DM is free to cook up whatever story he sees fit, but he CANNOT let an NPC move further thah 5 feet after performing a full-round action, no matter if he is "always right" or not.

 

If I play with a GM that breaks the rules in his favour, I not only feel like im being railroaded, but like Im on a railroad travelling uphill. Whats the point of playing if the GM is just going to do what he wants no matter what I do? Then I might aswell watch a film instead.

[Volourn]

Agreed, overall. But, sometimes I do bend the rules a little. But, it's very rare. And, I can't recall *ever* giving npcs special powers that a PC could never hope to have. Closest to that is the one or two times the PCs encountered an avatar (one was an ally, and the other they didn't defeat nor did they really 'lose')...

[213374U]

So this means you have never had your players kill Yoda?

[Jediphile]

At Uni I have this teacher who is obsessed about gameplay, and after a year one cant avoid being influenced. A few years ago, I thought it was ok for the GM to bend the rules in favour of his npc's, villains, monsters etc. but now Ive completely changed my mind. The thesis is this:

 

 

RPG's are games, and in a game it is vital that all involved parties play by the same rules in order for it to be fair and enjoyable.

 

 

A RPG like D&D 3.5 have rules that are constructed, balanced and meant to be used. The DM is free to cook up whatever story he sees fit, but he CANNOT let an NPC move further thah 5 feet after performing a full-round action, no matter if he is "always right" or not.

 

If I play with a GM that breaks the rules in his favour, I not only feel like im being railroaded, but like Im on a railroad travelling uphill. Whats the point of playing if the GM is just going to do what he wants no matter what I do? Then I might aswell watch a film instead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes and no. I think you're seeing it a tad too black-and-white for my taste.

 

If the player feels that his actions and, particularly, his choices are void, because the GM won't let them influence the outcome of the game, then yes - then the game has a problem.

 

However, I don't agree that you therefore need to take it to the extreme of always off following the rules blindly, even if they lead you over a cliff. The old D&D basic rules - you know, from the red box - had one rule overriding everything: Be fair!

 

I've always played the game by that rule. Sure, there are times when I want stuff to happen in the game regardless of what the players want, but as a GM, I also don't want to have the players suffer under a rule that's just unfair, especially if it kills them all off without at least giving them a fighting chance.

 

Rulebending, fudging die-rolls, and rail-roading is no more evil or "wrong" than min-maxing is. They are all good or bad depending on how you use them, and I maintain that a good GM knows when to ignore or overrule the rules. Maintaining a good flow of the game is far more important to me than the hollow satisfaction of knowing that I "followed the rules".

[Spider]

RPG's are games, and in a game it is vital that all involved parties have as much fun as possible.

 

If a rule gets in the way of having fun, then the rule needs to be changed or removed. If my GM gives bends the rules in favor of NPCs he (or she, depening on who currently is heading the game) does so in order to make the game more enjoyable for the players. It's just as likely that the rules will be bent in favor of the players though.

 

Rules must never come in the way of having fun.

[MrBrown]

At Uni I have this teacher who is obsessed about gameplay, and after a year one cant avoid being influenced. A few years ago, I thought it was ok for the GM to bend the rules in favour of his npc's, villains, monsters etc. but now Ive completely changed my mind. The thesis is this:

 

 

RPG's are games, and in a game it is vital that all involved parties play by the same rules in order for it to be fair and enjoyable.

I think you're confusing a couple of things here.

 

First, you say that the GM changing the rules on the fly is bad. Then, to cure this, you say that "all parties must play by the same rules".

 

Basically:

 

1. GM authority over rules; does it exist?

2. Do the same rules apply to NPCs and PCs?

 

 

You can very well have a game where the GM has no singular authority to change rules (personally, I'd consider that necessary for any RPGs), but the PCs and NPCs still operate by different rules.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I didnt confuse anything? or have I overlooked something?

 

 

1. The GM does not have authority over the rules.

 

-I would say the group can modify the rules as long as all the players and the GM agree on the changes. My teacher on the hand says that if you change the rules, you're no longer playing the game the designers built.

 

 

2. PCs and NPCs must follow the exact same rules in all circumstances where rolls are required.

 

-The most annoying example of this was whe we played WFRP and our GM kept allowing the enemy to move further in one round than they are allowed. They perform a full action and then still do one half action in the same round. And they all mysteriously had the "lightning parry" feat which allows you to parry even though you did not spend a half action to go to parrying stance, even though their career did not give them that feat.

[Judge Hades]

I have always treated the NPCs equal to the PCs. I don't bend the rules for the PCs nor the NPCs.

[MrBrown]

I didnt confuse anything? or have I overlooked something?

Yes. You still keep talking about two different things like they were the same.

 

 

For instance, many RPG systems give the players a metagame resource (Fate, Luck, Void, it has a lot of names) they can use to re-roll dice, exceed their typical creative authority (GM: "The NPC does this..." Player: *Uses Luck point* "No he doesn't"), etc.

 

Many (not all) games that use this kind of mechanics only give it to the players, not the NPCs. This is an example of PCs and NPCs working by different rules, but not necessarily with any GM authority over the rules. #2 without #1, that is.

 

 

Though, from your posts, it's obvious that your real problem is with #1.

 

 

1. The GM does not have authority over the rules.

 

-I would say the group can modify the rules as long as all the players and the GM agree on the changes. My teacher on the hand says that if you change the rules, you're no longer playing the game the designers built.

I agree with you, and your teacher. I don't see how it matters whether you're playing the "original" game or not, though. Edited June 26, 2006 by MrBrown

[Kaftan Barlast]

My teacher used to be in the gaming industry and he hates the idea of people playing HIS games "the wrong way", so he dislikes people playing others games in the wrong way aswell.

 

 

You still keep talking about two different things like they were the same.

 

For instance, many RPG systems give the players a metagame resource (Fate, Luck, Void, it has a lot of names) they can use to re-roll dice, exceed their typical creative authority (GM: "The NPC does this..." Player: *Uses Luck point* "No he doesn't"), etc.

 

Many (not all) games that use this kind of mechanics only give it to the players, not the NPCs. This is an example of PCs and NPCs working by different rules, but not necessarily with any GM authority over the rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats because Fate points etc. are included in the game rules for balance, and it clearly states in the rules that they are for PC's only. This might seem a bit hypocritical but I dont consider it a breach of "everyone must follow the same rules" because those are the rules you follow. Thats why I dont consider those things part of this discussion.

[MrBrown]

Thats because Fate points etc. are included in the game rules for balance, and it clearly states in the rules that they are for PC's only. This might seem a bit hypocritical but I dont consider it a breach of "everyone must follow the same rules" because those are the rules you follow. Thats why I dont consider those things part of this discussion.

 

Well, alot of people prefer to have PCs and NPCs work by the same rules because they prefer world consistency or some such; not necessarily because they dislike the GM changing rules on the fly. This is one of the reasons why I'd separate the "same rules for PCs and NPCs" from the "authority over game rules" -discussion.

[Jediphile]

I didnt confuse anything? or have I overlooked something?

 

 

1. The GM does not have authority over the rules.

 

-I would say the group can modify the rules as long as all the players and the GM agree on the changes. My teacher on the hand says that if you change the rules, you're no longer playing the game the designers built.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is the Gary Gygax argument: "You have to play the game as I wrote it, or you're not playing AD&D at all".

 

It may technically be true, even for an RPG, but then who cares?

 

2. PCs and NPCs must follow the exact same rules in all circumstances where rolls are required.

 

-The most annoying example of this was whe we played WFRP and our GM kept allowing the enemy to move further in one round than they are allowed. They perform a full action and then still do one half action in the same round. And they all mysteriously had the "lightning parry" feat which allows you to parry even though you did not spend a half action to go to parrying stance, even though their career did not give them that feat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Definitely a problem right there, yes. I may fudge die rolls and rules as a GM at times, but there is no way I can let my players know it. You know the situation, when you say, "I rolled a 20!" behind your GM's screen and then quickly hide the die so the players can't see...

 

Or you can have outcome C occur whether the players choose option A or option B. This is also known as "Heads - you lose. Tails - I win."

 

As long as the GM does this for the sake of flow and fun in the game, and is fair about it - oh, and doesn't let the players find out! That's very important! - I don't see this as very problematic. After all, there are times when I fudge the dice in the PCs' favor too.

 

To me it's like the directing in a film - as long as the director's hand is unseen, I'm happy, even if I know I'm being manipulated. But if I see where the director is *telling* me what I'm supposed to think, then I'll be incensed! And I'll stop watching! How dares he tell me what I'm supposed to think and do!!! :angry:

 

Just the same in an RPG - as long as the GM's manipulative hand is invisible, it's all fine. But if it becomes obvious, then there's trouble!

[Volourn]

"My teacher used to be in the gaming industry and he hates the idea of people playing HIS games "the wrong way", so he dislikes people playing others games in the wrong way aswell."

 

Your teacher is stupid. Besides, D&D encourages rule changes. In fact, it's in the rules that rule changes are encouraged in D&D. Check out Rule 0.

 

Game over.

[alanschu]

My teacher used to be in the gaming industry and he hates the idea of people playing HIS games "the wrong way", so he dislikes people playing others games in the wrong way aswell.

 

Who is he to say that people are playing the other games "the wrong way?"

[Judge Hades]

That is like saying you can only interpret a poem in one way or divulge only one meaning from a piece of prose.

[Jediphile]

That is like saying you can only interpret a poem in one way or divulge only one meaning from a piece of prose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Precisely.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I agree with you, my teacher (who shall not be named because he likes to google his name) who got fired this summer, is a bit weird and stubborn when it comes to some things.

 

 

Still a good rule is one who is written so that it leaves absolutely no room for interpretation

[213374U]

Aye. Then you can either follow it to the letter, or ignore it altogether. )

[Atreides]

A werewolf is fine too.

[MrBrown]

Hmm. Well, I'm not Kaftan's teacher, but I can imagine one such thing that would annoy me if I was the creator of a PnP RPG product.

 

Without going into why it is so, alot of RPG players and groups have a very narrowly defined way to play RPGs. That is to say, they consider those ways to be good roleplaying, and while they might agree that other preferences exist and respect them, they don't consider those equal to their way. In other words, to them, all the differences between RPG products are just differences in ways to achieve the same thing. So when they try a new product, they don't try to find new "things" to achieve with it, but rather attempt to employ it for the same thing they did the previous one. I could see how this would be vexing for the creator, if he meant the product for a different "thing".

 

Absolutism over rules is no solution in any case. <_<