Forums of the Megaverse®

Rare spells are as rare as the GM makes them.
Anyone flogs the book in the GM's face, should expect the GM to use said book to break their nose and shatter their kneecaps.

Rule 1: The GM has final say in ANY ruling.
Rule 2: see rule 1.

Rule 3: Players can walk if the don’t like the GMs attitude.
And they should.

GMs who behave like this quickly find themselves without players.

A player who is arguing that their head canon is right and that both the GM and Book are incorrect after a discussion on the topic has occurred with both sides presented and the GM being left to make a decision deserves to be smacked down and smacked down fast and hard.
Honestly if a player persisted in that sort of argument with me they would be told to leave and not come back.
I am there to run a fun game and my players are there to play a fun game. There is a kind of social contract there. They agree that in the end I am the one that is going to have to make the final call on everything and that some times the answer is "because that doesn't work for my game". In exchange I agree to provide a game in which everyone (myself included) is having fun.
I have yet to see a GM or Player who has fun when another player is arguing that the GM is wrong because the book rule that the GM is using is wrong and that everyone should accept that players personal homebrew as the One True Way.
That player is in violation of the Gaming Contract and just like our society doesn't say "well it is a dog so it has every right to be there and no one can stop it" about a rabid dog in a dog park and instead goes and shoots it a player who is poisoning the gaming for everyone needs to be culled before they cause more damage.

A discussion forum? Yeah that is the perfect place to discuss it.
A round table where the group is discussing house rules? Oh heck yeah.
The party wants to buy a spell, sees the price asks if it really costs that much and the GM says "hmm, that does seem a bit steep, can you think of why I should lower it though" that is the time and place for it.
Other time? not so much
After presenting the argument and the GM considering it and then ruling after stating why they are ruling that way? Its Banhammer Time.

Right. Great.
But that didn't seem to be what he was discussing.

How so?
He says that rare spells are as rare as the GM makes them.
He then goes on to say that trying to argue that the GM is incorrect iswrong, arguing that the book is incorrect is wrong and that trying to argue that that your opinion is more important than either of them is folly
He then points out that in such a case there is only one person making the rules for the game. That is the GM. Which is quite literally the entire purpose of the GM. That is their job. They run the game, they arbitrate the rules, they make the rules that cover unexpected situations, they change the rules when needed to fit the game.
I can not see how his post could be taken in any other way in the slightest.
He is literally saying that being a rules lawyer is inherently wrong (which it is) especially when it comes to trying to establish your fanon as being superior to canon (which at another persons table is always wrong.)

If you do not like the fact that the GM is doing their job and being a GM, then go run your own game, because at that persons table you are a player and while you can advise and ask the ultimate authority is always that of the GM. You agreed to that the moment you sat down and if you wish to break that agreement then the GM has no obligation to allow a person who has just demonstrated that they are selfish and untrustworthy the privilege of playing. And it is a privilege to play at a GMs table with the sole exception being if that GM is being paid to run the game.

Right. Implying that it's the GM's right to ignore anything the books have to say on the subject.
Nothing there about the player making anything up, nor about the players being wrong about the rules.



Yes, he does, but GMs are in fact often wrong.
Comes from being people.



No... that's part that I'm not seeing anywhere in his post.
What I see is him saying that if anybody tries to point out the rules to the GM, the GM can pull the Rule Number 1 card, "The GM has final say in ANY ruling," end of story.

Which is technically true, but it shouldn't be the GM's first go-to any time a player tells the GM what the rules are.
The GM should already KNOW what the rules are, not just make them up as he/she goes along, then justify it by pulling out the referee trump card.



No, actually, the GMs don't make the rules.
They interpret the rules, fill in the gaps, and they run the game.
Palladium makes the rules. Game Masters are storytellers and referees by definition, but not rule-makers.
You can GM a game without making rules for the game.

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.



A GM isn't the ultimate authority, though.
Because--as I pointed out--players can and should walk away if they don't like what the GM is doing.
I mean, the GM can still be the ultimate authority over themself after all their players have been driven away, but it's not much of an accomplishment.
It's only a privilege to play at the table of a good GM, one without a God complex, one who understands that he's only one player the table, and he's only there by the sufferance of the group.
Role-Playing is a democracy or a republic, not a dictatorship.

Hmmm, I wonder what the context here is?
Perhaps it might be in the middle of a discussion about the economic theory governing the rarity and price of spells?
That sort of suggests, at least to me that he is talking about the topic and not starting a new one about GM omnipotence.
Though I could be wrong... in which case I suppose we should have this moved to a new topic about GM theory in the GM forum.


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.
It is literally impossible. They are the sole person that creates it and they are the one who has made all the decisions about its construction. Thus to be 'wrong' about it someone else would have to be more correct about what that GM really wanted to do in their own game.
"No I'm sorry Mr. Tolkien you don't get it. You really meant for elves to be pacifists with green skin who can talk to plants. I know its hard to accept but your only human. Now get back in there and fix it."
No, the term for this I believe is "Meglomania"


And again that is not what is being said here.
And once again context is important.
You are acting as if this statement is in a vacuum and that nothing that has been said previously in the discussion has any bearing on it.
That isn't how conversations go.
If the GM has ruled that for this game spells above level 9 will cost 5x the book rate, then that is what they cost in that world.
If you disagree, and you do have the right to, arguing that the rules say you can't do that is 100% wrong. First off in almost all cases (and explicitly stated in Palladium) the rules DO say that the GM can do that. Second off until there has been an actual discussion on the topic you cant assume that there isn't a reason for it. My last game I ruled that no one could play anything but humans or things related to humans. Every time I was asked for a waiver I simply said "no sorry I'm the GM". I couldn't exactly tell them that "well you see, there is this surprise twist in this game that hinges on the characters being related to a specific NPC so you all have to characters I can tie this into"



I beg to differ.
I have yet to see a game that can be run purely RAW with no need to change rules or add them.
ESPECIALLY in Palladium.
And I would argue that the GM IS making all the rules. They usually say "we are using these rules here except where I have changed them"
In fact In all my gaming experience I have only encountered one game that said that the GM wasn't allowed to change anything in the rules. And that game was a satirical game lampooning gaming.


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.



No you are incorrect there.
The GM is, by definition, the ultimate authority. That is what the term "Game Master" means. The one who is the master of the game. There can, and should be, discussion on issues yes. But at the end of the day there is only one person that has the authority to implement or not implement the results of any discussion. One. That sort of means that yes, they are the Ultimate Authority.
The option to leave a situation does not make you the ruler of the situation or even a co-ruler.
Just because a person has the ability to vote in the United States, and to move to another country or even change citizenship does not make them part of the government. It simply means you have a voice and a reasonable expectation that you should be allowed to voice your opinion. It doesn't mean that your opinion needs to be consulted on every question of policy though.


No, I am sorry you are fundamentally incorrect here.
This is a discussion of a binary state. It is either a privilege or a right. There is no other option.
So then if it is not a privilege then you are stating that the players have the right to demand that the GM run games for them, with out any form of compensation.
I believe the term for that is "slavery" and it is my understanding that it is rather quite illegal pretty much every where on this planet and its near environs.

GM/player dynamics are heavily dependent on what group you're in. When I was a teenager, the GM would usually be an older guy (looking back, I'm guessing they were late 20s, which I thought was old then). They ran things how they saw fit, and if you didn't like it, then too bad. There were lots of kids at the game store looking to play, and it wasn't uncommon to have games with a dozen players.

Now I'm almost 40, and I have so many things I could be doing other than playing RPGs. I have to make a real effort to set aside time so that I can show up to a game session. Players seem to be more rare these days, but every one of them seems to have a game they want to run. Like Hollywood where everybody has a movie script they're trying to sell, the local game store has a bunch of people who think they're gonna GM.

I'm not going to take any crap from somebody who wants to rule their game with an iron fist. If you want to do that, that's fine, do it with a different player. The GM has authority only so far in that people want to show up and play in his game.

The way I can see things RP'd is the GM can agree with the core book that your standard guild / teacher charges the usual rate for 15th level spells for Dimensional Portal...

He cannot however, stop the Shifter from offering to teach that spell for a lower price than that, and that should have the effect of pulling customers away from other sellers who charge a higher price.

That said, he'd have to drop the price significantly anyway just to compete with more established people who have a better reputation (ie they can actually teach, they will not murder your in your sleep, etc.)

This can have a long-term advantage of increasing the number of buyers, but has the long-term risk of competitors ("stop taking my customers!") and do-gooders ("stop giving terrorists the means to open portals to Hades in the middle of the orphanages!") targeting the undercutter.


Oy. When you said "step out of the modern mind set and see a society where information is not freely shared" it seemed to me like you were implying that information was never freely shared in Rifts, and always freely shared in the modern era.

So when I replied "info isn't freely shared" I meant "not ALWAYS freely".

The truth of the matter is: the free sharing of information and the selling of information occurs both IRL in the modern era and on Rifts Earth.

Now that we are past absolutes, I believe what you are getting at is that you think information is freely shared less often on Rifts Earth than it is IRL at present day.

I believe our world and Rifts Earth are too varied to make sweeping generalizations like this, because FOI is something which can vary nation by nation. I believe there are places on Rifts Earth where information is more freely shared than places on Modern Earth, and vice versa.

I think to make comparisons we would have to compare more specific places.

I would be comfortable saying that there is more FOI in the USA presently than in the Coalition States, for example, but I would not be comfortable saying there is more FOI in Germany presently than in the NGR, in contrast.


I think the fees will still be high (time is valuable, and you take a risk spending time for extended periods with anyone) just possibly not AS high for spells which have become more prolific.


That depends on if you plan on being on-hand to open Rifts in dangerous areas where people might want to open them. If you don't want to, then selling them a scroll or teaching them may be the only means of making money.


Interesting contrast Where do you think a Scroll of Restoration might fall between these extremes?


DP isn't just useful for allowing yourself access to other dimensions, it is also useful for granting things from other dimensions access to you.

There aren't really "a lot" of ways to get the spell. You either have someone on-scene to cast it where and when you desire it, or you must be literate and must buy a scroll to cast it where and when you want it.

Either way, you're taking a risk that the spell will not be cast due to the rented mage being unwilling, not having the lighting required to read the scroll, the scroll being a dud and actually mislabelled and it turns out to be some other spell, etc.

Actually knowing the spell removes a lot of these variables.

Right.
And in that topic, he seems to be saying "The scarcity of spells is whatever the **** the GM wants it to be,"
NOT "Well, if a player doesn't know all the rules, and is pushing head-canon..." or "The GM knows the rules better, and is more likely to know what the official scarcity levels should be" or anything about that.
There's no qualifiers; just "GM says so."

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...?




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."



No, I'm acting like the topic is how rare spells are, and he made a post that responded to that topic, downplaying or ignoring anything that the books might have to say on the subject in favor of The GM Is Always Right.



Bolded the part that covers that.
"Adding to the rules" is not "making the rules for the game," any more than adding salt to cooked food is "preparing a meal."
Modifying an engine is not the same as building an engine.



Maybe reread what you responded to, because you're not really disagreeing with it.



Sure it does.
Politicians are only "the authority" because we vote them in, and they only stay an authority as long as we don't vote them out or otherwise get rid of them.
If the people you're bossing around can fire you, you're not the ultimate authority.



"Ultimate" means "final," not "micro-managing."



How do you figure?
That just seems like a false dilemma to me.
I mean, if somebody starts telling you a boring story you don't want to hear, is hearing that story your privilege or your right...?
To me, it's simply an unpleasant experience that you can walk away from at any time.

I got it from the fact that was what the topic of discussion was at the time he made the comment?


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). Then you are saying that since the GM can make rules errors that they can therefore make errors in how they designed their world.
That is wrong on so many levels I'm not even sure how to begin. But I'll try
No. Just No.


No you are not taking context in consideration at all.
You are taking the statements as if there was no other discussion. As if they were the opening statements to a discussion instead of a stance on the specific issue at hand.
i.e. out of context.


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.
Or are you making yet another strawman by splitting hairs to act as if adding rules is not making rules. Even though I have no earthly idea how one is going to add a rule that is not made, I am curious for the explanation on that.


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"
The GM has no such obligation in any way or form.
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.


Again your making a fallacy there.
Any given voter has no effect on the President.
Now if enough of them to represent 51% or more of the Electoral Collage join together then they can affect the President.
Until that point the President and Congress and Supreme Court are the Ultimate Authority.
Because there is no individual person that can over ride their decisions.
And to be frank there is no way to over ride them, period, as there is no mechanisim for a law to come into being or be repealed except by an Act of Congress.


And as I said above. 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.
Now it is true that the members of congress can be voted out, and the President can be voted out or Impeached. But that still doesn't change anything. it simply means that people have a way to express displeasure at the people that are the Ultimate Authority.



Well gee. If you cherry pick the quotes, and take them out of context, and then dodge the question by discussion something else then sure... your right.
But in an actual discussion of what I actually said? not so much.

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.
If playing at the GMs table is not a Privilege then it is a Right. And that by its nature means that the GM has no say. They are obligated will they or nil they to run games for people since not doing so violates the rights of the Player[/i].
And that requiring a person to do work with out compensation is slavery.
I reject the idea that GMs are literal slaves to their Players until such time as the players choose to release the GM.

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.



You didn't say "rules errors."
Seriously, go back and look.



I haven't said anything about how the GM designs their game world.



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.



"I would argue that the GM IS making all the rules."
-Eliakon


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.



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...?



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.



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.



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)



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.



By my view, sometimes it's just something unpleasant that you can walk away from.



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.

I Have ask the mods to split off the discussion on GM theory to a separate thread as it is now utterly off topic and just spamming the thread.
I will wait until they have a chance to act before I continue to post on said topic.