eliakon wrote:So... how the heck did you get anything about players being wrong about the rules, or pushing head-canon over canon, from what he said...?
I got it from the fact that was what the topic of discussion was at the time he made the comment?[/quote]
So you didn't consider that he might have just wandered into the conversation and been responding to the original post or the topic in general.
On the other hand, since his post didn't seem to interact with at least the three posts before his, and because he didn't quote anybody, to me it looks like he's just making a general comment that's not directed at anybody in particular, nor about anything in particular other than the general topic and the original post.
Killer Cyborg wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:He then goes on to say that trying to argue that the GM is incorrect is wrong,
Yes, he does, but GMs are in fact often wrong.
Comes from being people.
You can make a bad call. You can make a mistake about a trap, or to many monsters in the fight, or give out to much gold. That sort of stuff happens.
But a GM, by definition, can not be "wrong" about how their setting works.
Well, that's the thing--it's not the GM's setting. It's Palladium's setting.
If the GM mis-remembers Boom Gun damage as 2d6x10, then guess what? The GM is wrong.
If the GM doesn't research the CS, and he assumes that they don't have a minister of propaganda, then guess what?
He's wrong again.
GMs are wrong about rules and settings frequently.
Any time they conflict with canon
without knowing it, they're wrong.
It's one thing for a GM to say, "Yes, I understand that the rules are x, but I'm house-ruling y."
It's another thing for a GM to say "The books are wrong, and players are in the wrong for even bothering to learn the rules, because whatever the heck I say goes."
Again that is wrong.
Your making a straw man there actually.
Your taking what I said (you can make rules errors) pretending I didn't say that (which is in and of itself not acceptable).
You didn't say "rules errors."
Seriously, go back and look.
Then you are saying that since the GM can make rules errors that they can therefore make errors in how they designed their world.
I haven't said anything about how the GM designs their game world.
So then are you either pretending that the first speaker was saying that there was no game engine previously and they were using a personal system. As I will note that no where was the statement said, or even implied that the GM was making all the rules.
The first speaker to say anything here about the GM "making the rules."
And yeah, when you say "the GM makes the rules," that implies that he's making all or most of the rules--that the GM making rules is the most common way that rules are made.
If you mispoke, that's cool.
You're always free to acknowledge miscommunication and to rephrase.
If by "there is only one person making the rules for the game. That is the GM." and by " I would argue that the GM IS making all the rules," you actually meant "The GM makes house-rules, to supplement or clarify the existing game rules," then we can be in agreement.
As I will note that no where was the statement said, or even implied that the GM was making all the rules.
"I would argue that the GM IS making all the rules."
-Eliakon
Killer Cyborg wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:Part of the GM's job is to know what the rules are, and to stick to those rules as much as possible, excepting cases where house rules are being used and the players are informed about this before the fact.
No.
The GMs job is to tell the players what rules are being used whether they are published rules or house rules.The idea that the GM must only use the RAW is a pernicious fallacy spread by Rules Lawyers and should be quashed at every opportunity.
Maybe reread what you responded to, because you're not really disagreeing with it.
Actually I am saying that you are 100% wrong.
The difference though is the fallacious dodge of the rules lawyer. Specifically it is the argument that the GM has an obligation to "and to stick to those rules as much as possible"[/quote]
You left out the rest of that: ", excepting cases where house rules are being used and the players are informed about this before the fact," which changes the meaning.
So when I say
Part of the GM's job is to know what the rules are, and to stick to those rules as much as possible, excepting cases where house rules are being used and the players are informed about this before the fact,And you say
The GMs job is to tell the players what rules are being used whether they are published rules or house rules,We're both saying that the GM is required or obliged to tell the players whether they're using house rules or the official rules.
The GM has no such obligation in any way or form.
So... in a case where no house rules are being used, a GM is under NO obligation to either know the official rules, nor to stick to them...?
The GMs job is to know what the canon rules are then to decide what rules they do not like and replace those with rules that suit them better. Then it is their job to let the players know what the new rules are.
THAT is the GM's job.
As I said: The GM's job is to know the rules, and to stick to those rules unless they're using house rules, and they've informed the players about the house rules.
Any given voter has no effect on the President.
So?
That doesn't mean that The Voters as a group don't have the authority to remove a president.
If I have a job where a group of people have to fire me, and no one member of the group has that authority, does that mean that I'm "The Ultimate Authority?"
Not by my view.
The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are the Ultimate Authority.
They have the FINAL word.
No one else can gainsay their decisions. No One. That sounds pretty final to me.
I refer you to the 2nd Amendment.
(But more seriously, we're possibly getting too real-world-political for this forum, and the mods crack down on this kind of thing)
I said that it is a Privilege to play at the GMs table unless they are getting some form of compensation to run.
You replied that it was only a Privilege for good GMs
I then noted that Privilege is part of a binary state, and that if something is not a privilege then it is a Right.
Choosing to exercise that Right or not does not change the situation.
So you'd say that you have the Right to listen to a boring story that you don't want to participate in, NOT the privilege to do so?
Because, again, to me there are more options than just Rights and Privileges.
If playing at the GMs table is not a Privilege then it is a Right.
By my view, sometimes it's just something unpleasant that you can walk away from.
I reject the idea that GMs are literal slaves to their Players until such time as the players choose to release the GM.
Then don't pose that idea in the first place.
Nobody else was talking about it.
Like any of the other players, GMs are free to walk away. That's the thing about a consensual group activity--there is no Ultimate Authority.
It's a
consensual group activity. It takes a team of people working together, making compromises.
Where do you think a Scroll of Restoration might fall between these extremes?