"Most Annoying "Truism" in Gaming" Topic

Some folks call them "Truisms", others refer to them as a "Commonplace", but generally they can be defined as "Things Everybody Accepts Without Question."

Everbody but you.

You're at a table, you're having fun, but you see an odd twitch in the GM's ruling and you start to extrapolate where this will go, so you ask: "Um; okay, what is the number I need to roll, please?"

…and he replies: "I know what the number is, just roll and I'll tell you if you got it."

The idea that he should be allowed to behave that way just because he's the GM is a "trusim" or a "commonplace".

Widely accepted, despite the fact that it is completely unsupportable by logic, manners or good sportsmanship.

So, what are some other "Trusims" that drive you nuts?

- "The rules are just guidelines." (Go ahead and cheat.)

- "This is YOUR game!" (Don't bother us with rules questions.)

- "Points provide a level playing field for a fair game." (Rock, Paper, Scissors is the Ultimate Wargame!)

- "Historical flavor is more important than historical accuracy." (I can't be bothered to do research, I'm an artist, dammit.)

- "Just because the rules allow stupid tactics doesn't mean the rules are flawed." (Yes, it does.)

- "That rule may be accurate, but it's stupid." (I lost a game because I ignored that rule.)

- "Play balance is crucial if you want to have a good game." (Forget about Camerone, the Alamo, Thermopylae, Bastogne, Midway, Wake Island, Stalingrad, Normandy, Most of the Military History of Civilization, every boxing match ever held…)

And the All-Time Winner and Grand Champion:

- "There are only a handful of experts on this subject; I'm one of them and I know the rest, and I don't know you, so your opinion on this matter is irrelevant." (I am a bigger Jon Edwards than Jon Edwards.)

- "Just because the rules allow stupid tactics doesn't mean the rules are flawed." (Yes, it does.)

No it doesn't.

- "This is YOUR game!" (Don't bother us with rules questions.)

That one irks me the most. Yes, I *know* I can do whatever I want; I'm asking how YOU think your game should be played.

Really? "I agree with X" is still snipped? Sigh.

I agree with the fellow who said rules that allow stupid tactics are not flawed. In fact, I prefer rules that let you do a-historical or foolish things, but reward you for using the men the way they've been trained. For example, in a "Linear Warfare Age" game, you should be able to operate in loose order, but your men should not be happy about it.

Any kid in the game will roll ten times better than you, especially if he's on the opposing side.

You will roll the opposite of what you need. Need a one and you will a six. Need a six you will roll a one.

When in an RPG, the GM says "I had to kill the party, I rolled a natural 20".

Dude, this is ROLE-playing, not ROLL-playing. If you won't put any effort into making the story work out, don't get annoyed when the players don't either.

Any woman in the ame will roll killer dice.
Weaselhoffen.

Cheaters never cheat to lose.

You're at a table, you're having fun, but you see an odd twitch in the GM's ruling and you start to extrapolate where this will go, so you ask: "Um; okay, what is the number I need to roll, please?"

…and he replies: "I know what the number is, just roll and I'll tell you if you got it."

The idea that he should be allowed to behave that way just because he's the GM is a "trusim" or a "commonplace".

Widely accepted, despite the fact that it is completely unsupportable by logic, manners or good sportsmanship.

So, what are some other "Trusims" that drive you nuts?

Whoa! Tetchy tetchy!

This I don't get. It seems to be predicated on the idea that the GM is a referee, and bound by the rules. I know of only a very few early rpgs where this is the case, and those tend to be rather simplistic, like En Garde! of Superhero 2084.

Modern rpgs do not bind the GM by rules. The idea is not that he is bound by rules, but that he is creating the game for the players to have fun with. So, if you don't have fun with that particular GM, don't play in his game. If you find the idea of a GM despotic, you probably shouldn't be a roleplayer.

Now, if you are talking about the GM of a wargame, as at a convention, his role is usually much more limited. He only intervenes if there is a question about the rules, or a factual question (is that within 12"?) or if he sees something obviously wrong taking place.

Maybe it is a truism, but it is one of the essentials to making roleplaying work.

that good looking chicks really aren't interested in wargamers

Maybe I should have said "rules that encourage stupid tactics".
For instance, any set of rules that lets you charge unarmored cavalry uphill against emplaced gunners in defensive positions are not, per se, "flawed".
However, any set of rules that virtually guarantees your continual success with such a tactic are flawed beyond redemption.
QED

Whoa! Tetchy tetchy!

This I don't get. It seems to be predicated on the idea that the GM is a referee, and bound by the rules. I know of only a very few early rpgs where this is the case, and those tend to be rather simplistic, like En Garde! of Superhero 2084.

If this had been a roleplaying game, I might have agreed with you.
In fact, it was part of a series of three linked "Operation: Sealion" games played at Historicon a few years back. My friend and I were "doing too well" as commanders of a German glider assault team, which was threatening to "throw off the planned games for the rest of the convention". These are all verbatim quotes, by the way.

Note that the entire appeal of these linked events was that the level of success or failure in each day's game affected the assets and deployments of the games to follow.

If a game – ANY game, historical battle or RPG – is well-designed and thought out, then the GM can be an impartial referee. In an RPG the players die or they prevail or sometimes they just run away. All are legitimate results and can comprise the aspects of a satisfying story in their own right, if the players are allowed to be active contributors to the narrative.

If all the players are there for is to "experience the wonderfulness of the GM's creative genius", he might as well just tie them to chairs and read them the plot.

In an historical game, invalidating the (eventually allowed) die roll that brought in a Stuka because "it's not fair to the Brits" made my friend and I and the other German players feel we had wasted four hours' effort only to be told we had lost a battle we'd all played well to win.

In short, it was like giving a blue ribbon to every kid who showed up for a footrace.

"You're all winners!"

"Then why did I bust my ass to come in first?"

Phidippides is spinning in his grave…

Bytorr wrote: "that good looking chicks really aren't interested in wargamers"

Boy, I know THAT one is a myth! :-)