Dilemma-thread

>A) The GM is always right
>B) Everyone should have fun

Neither. The second one in particular is too short sighted to be consider the most important rule, and relies too heavily on subjectivity and loose definitions to even count as a rule. It's often just a throw-away phrase to excuse often reprehensible decisions and starts more arguments than it finishes.

Since you said I have to pick one, B is the better of the two (since bad GM's are more common than good ones), but the caveat is that it's often important to sacrifice a moment's entertainment in exchange for better games in the future. "Fun" is a poor ultimate goal for a game, because it can easily be achieved and then it becomes a question of trying to cling to and remix it. Worse still, when the rule is "Fun trumps everything", we end up with a floating argument starter, since interpretations of fun vary wildly and one person's idea of fun will inevitably run counter to another person's.

Every group has it's own goals, and while entertainment is a vital interest, I think part of the stagnation that comes out of some groups is this circular quest for fun for the sake of fun, rather than having fun in pursuit of some more concrete goal.

"A campaign worthy of a novel" is a lofty goal, as is "Game that leaves you better than when you began." Neither are particularly ideal, but that's why I'm still trying to figure out some ultimate rule that lies beyond "Everyone should have fun." Something that helps to explain why it's more important for a group to get better at playing a game, to approach it with some degree of gravity beyond what can be accomplished with far simpler games.

I'm afraid that it might just be something that was inscribed thousands of years ago on the entrance to the Temple of Delphi. "Know thyself." The ultimate rule and goal isn't simply to discover what you find entertaining and why you find it fun, but to learn what annoys you, what inspires you, what motivates and what scares you.

This. The GM is a referee and adjudicator. They always have the last say, but should do so after taking into account the arguments and group consensus.

Define 'cheating'.
If we're talking about players, then cheating is should never be allowed, full stop.
If we're talking about the GM, then they are under no strict obligation to follow the rules, but should do so out of principle regardless. As a GM, I never fudge rolls and avoid shell game/quantum ogre situations wherever possible, just because it removes a certain amount of the players' agency.

I've got one:
A) the players are playing the DM's setting
B) We're making the setting together

Maybe this is about preferences, but pick one either way.

Assholes who break the rules 'to keep the GM on their toes' don't deserve to play. Do you go through like life breaking petty rules and lying in social interactions just so someone will call you out?

At one end, the GM doesn't catch you cheating, and you keep breaking the rules and making the game less fun for everyone (by constantly doing whatever you want, however you want). At the other, the GM constantly has to watch you to make sure you are not 'being cheeky' instead of devoting their efforts to running the best game for everyone. Like many things, RPGs work best when people realise that being a cockbag at the expense of everyone else is not the way to go through life.

Obviously both have their proponents, but I prefer A. Mainly because I enjoy games with mystery and exploration and both require information to be withheld from the players.
If the players are involved in the creation of the setting, that just doesn't work.

The exception is character backstory, which is mostly fine because it occurs before the campaign begins, so the GM can account for it.

A) The DM's setting. They have to keep everything in line in their head, follow their lead.

I've done communal world creation before a game, and that's fun, and I've done Apocalypse World where you just make shit up as you go, but generally I much prefer that people limit what they can declare to be true to only answering questions from the GM about their own character.

I'm usually the GM, so I'm biased

My players play in my setting. They may add to it if they want, via cultures or influences they like to see, but the "bulk" of the work is mine. That said, player action definitely shapes my setting campaign to campaign. Two campaigns ago the biggest power in the world was a feudal monarchy, now there's an upstart democracy in the south that's on the upswing to challenge that "old power" as a result of player character involvement.

In shorter games or to kick off the first adventure in a setting it can be fun to patch a setting together with your friends, I've done it several times. But in the long run, with a "grand campaign" sort of game or a series of campaigns, I think the stability and focus of having the GM cultivate a setting (with some player chunks if they like) is better.

>Do you go through like life breaking petty rules and lying in social interactions just so someone will call you out?
Yes. Keeps things interesting. I have issues. Don't try it.

>limit what people can declare to be true

This is a big one, and in my mind it fits into the idea that players should have agency over their own character, but not the world beyond a certain point.

"I'm from a harbor city on the other side of the world." is fine

"I'm from the city of X, which is the greatest power in the kingdom of Y, on the continent Z, whose main exports are-" etc, can get a little annoying as a GM when you've got a different vision for the setting than what your players come up with, though if people really want something I'm always willing to try and make it work by talking it out.

I like playing the DMS setting. But I'm the dm.

I do like letting the add to settings though. For example my next campaign will feature a ravinca like city with guilds. Every PC will be from a guild. Every session, once per session, a player will be able to use a guild connection. Maybe they invent a secret shop or safehouse. Or they fluff out the local guild boss.

Heck, if someone wants the backstory of 'guy from the richest port in the world', not only will I allow it, I'll help him by telling him all about that port and kingdom. But just saying something, especially when it goes against already established fact in the setting but the player doesn't remember that fact, is infuriating.

...

When encountering a player who is disruptive and a dick to other players, includes magical realms and /pol/itical beliefs in his game, shows too much of his weeaboo/edge/powerlevel, in short a 'that guy', what should you do?
>A) Try to include him, mitigate the damage and guide him towards being a better player, making more interesting characters and stop acting like a dick
>B) Ban him from the game. He'll fuck things up for everyone and redemption is unlikely

Unless he is your conjoined twin and you literally cannot divorce yourself from him without losing your lower organs in the settlement, bounce his ass. The shit people do to hold a group together floors me sometimes, a crappy group is worse than no group at all if need be. Keeping a That Guy around just to fuel future greentext threads is about as useful to your sanity and the health of your game as an ashtray on a jet ski, and if more people rejected these retards maybe they'd take a hard look inwards and wonder why.

>banhammer.jpg

> fulfillment beats chance in some scenarios

Very much this. As the GM , you are the guiding hand of the story, and act as the world around the characters. Failure is an important part of tabletops, as they are one of the few mediums where failure can still flavorfully impact the narrative and gameplay. A character being killed during an epic boss encounter is a fallen comrade to rally around, and has potential for new blood to be put into the party.

That being said, failure for failure's sake isn't what should be achieved. As all decent GMs are want to do, I run my games where you only roll the die if there is a chance of failure or if failure has a potential impact (if you're looking for something and have an unlimited time frame and no penalty for failure, you don't have to roll the dice until you succeed, you may just have to roll to see how long it takes you if that matters). But even then, sometimes you can use that to your advantage and give the "illusion of threat." Like your heroic last stand example, yeah you could handwave it and say "good job youdefeat 10 demon guards as they attempt to breach you, now roll because the 11th is the one that matters," or you can have them roll for each of those 10, fudging things this way and that to ensure narrow victories, making the last stand feel much more tense and dramatic to the players, because in their minds every roll of the dice is a chance for failure. Therefore every success matters. Even if you were going to let them kill the first 10 demons before they could fail, it's a better fit to the narrative to give the illusion of potential failure and fudge things behind the scenes.

Obviously B. We're already playing pretend. Breaking the arbitrary rules we established in order to prevent us from just "nuh-uh" and "yeah-huh"ing each other for five hours is pathetic

3 strike rule.

Strike 1 - I talk to you in private to discuss what you're doing and why it's disruptive. You get a chance to explain your actions and hopefully be a civilized adult about it. Explain what'll happen next time.

Strike 2 - Public talk in front of the whole table. Clearly state that if the behavior doesn't improve, than unfortunately you are not going to be a very good fit in our playgroup and we will have to remove you. However, if we can find a way to work this out like adults we will gladly pick that option and hopefully we can make this work.

Strike 3 - Fuck 'em scotty.

'The DM is always right' would be the more important of the two. But it doesn't necessarily invalidate the possibility of fun. Besides, the DM should be more than willing to apply the Rule of Cool when appropriate and hand wave mechanical restrictions when they would weaken the narrative; the narrative is always the most important aspect of play.

Cheating can fuck right off. If I found a player to be cheating in any of my games their character will be wiped and they themselves kicked from my game.