The "Buddy GM" - pros and cons

[Quertus]

So, a while back, the phrase "Buddy GM" got thrown around. IIRC, most of the participating members of the playground defined it as I will here: as a GM who, if you're his "buddy", and can convince him of the reasonableness of your action, it will work, regardless of what is on the character sheet.

Now, I personally generally prefer a neutral rules arbiter for a GM. But I feel that a lot of the potential upsides of the "Buddy GM" were overlooked when it was first described, and so I have created this thread to allow discussion of the pros and cons (but mostly pros) of the Buddy GM.

Again, it's not generally my preference, but, since I think most of us know the cons, by all means, list them - but let's not focus on them, eh?

So, what are a few of the pros?

Well, for one, the advantage of an RPG over a War Game is that there exists an "outside the box" that is a valid play area. Whenever you go outside the box, you're in the realm of "what does your GM believe is possible?". When this is a departure from "standard" play, it can make these moments feel... different. Wrong. Like the character whose backstory or personality just doesn't match, these moments may stick out as just not fitting with the rest of the campaign (even when told to someone with no concept of gaming). If, however, the entire game is based on GM whim, then the game is as consistent as the GM.

As a corollary to the above, if you are accustomed to "Buddy GM", then this "outside the box" area is familiar ground - you have the experience talking to the GM to work comfortably here, rather than fearing leaving the table's comfort zone.

My favorite "aesthetic"*, the part of the game from which I individually derive the greatest enjoyment, is Exploration. Why not have it in spades, and Explore the GM's concept of reality?

The last benefit of the "Buddy GM" I'll list before turning this over to the Playground is Novelty. Sure, I've played in, say, 100 different parties**, but none of them used this rule set before, none of them allowed us to do the things we've convinced this GM that we can do before. Under the Buddy GM, you can throw out RAW, and instead aim for Rule of Cool. And, given the choice, who wouldn't choose cooler characters?

OK, that's what I've got off the top of head. Playground? Does that make sense to y'all? What do you feel are the pros and cons of the Buddy GM?

* Seriously, did Angry ever give these a better name?
** That number is way low, but whatever.

[TheFamilarRaven]

You should define "convince him of the reasonableness of your action". Like, it doesn't typically say on my sheet that my character knows how a door operates, or that fire is hot, but I wouldn't call the GM "my buddy" if I opened a door or if I avoid a fire pit.

What I think you mean, is that a "Buddy GM" will let a player get away with shenanigans in game, (be they completely rules legal or not), simply because they like to see that player succeed or are amused by their antics. Shenanigans, in this case, meaning actions or character concepts that probably diverge from the rules as intended of whatever system they're currently playing.

Some examples could be: (In DnD 3.5) Using the rules as written to gain infinite Su wishes, (I think I'm safe in assuming the designers did not intend/expect for this to happen and that most DMs would not allow this). Or perhaps allowing a player to succeed in (difficult) tasks without the need for rolling, like jumping 20ft without making a jump check.

Or for an example of concept shenanigans, imagine a GM allowing players to create silly characters (like a sky diving dwarf) in an otherwise seriously toned game, or allowing one character to be a fairy princess while the rest of the party has to play humans.


The Pros of which, it can facilitate the indulgence of power fantasy.

The cons of which is that, in a group setting, can lead to favoritism of certain players over others and disrupt the enjoyment for said group.

[Quertus]

You should define "convince him of the reasonableness of your action". Like, it doesn't typically say on my sheet that my character knows how a door operates, or that fire is hot, but I wouldn't call the GM "my buddy" if I opened a door or if I avoid a fire pit.

What I think you mean, is that a "Buddy GM" will let a player get away with shenanigans in game, (be they completely rules legal or not), simply because they like to see that player succeed or are amused by their antics. Shenanigans, in this case, meaning actions or character concepts that probably diverge from the rules as intended of whatever system they're currently playing.

Some examples could be: (In DnD 3.5) Using the rules as written to gain infinite Su wishes, (I think I'm safe in assuming the designers did not intend/expect for this to happen and that most DMs would not allow this). Or perhaps allowing a player to succeed in (difficult) tasks without the need for rolling, like jumping 20ft without making a jump check.

Or for an example of concept shenanigans, imagine a GM allowing players to create silly characters (like a sky diving dwarf) in an otherwise seriously toned game, or allowing one character to be a fairy princess while the rest of the party has to play humans.


The Pros of which, it can facilitate the indulgence of power fantasy.

The cons of which is that, in a group setting, can lead to favoritism of certain players over others and disrupt the enjoyment for said group.

So, I'm not sure where you were going with this, but let me explain what I'm not talking about.

So, there's a line, that runs from "adversarial GM" through "neutral rules arbiter" to "fan of the PCs". And that's not what I'm trying to describe.

What I am trying to describe is a GM who focuses on Player Skills; or, rather, one Player Skill in particular: ability to convince the GM.

Now, this particular Player Skill happens to have several components: personal charisma, knowledge(GM), and relationship to the GM are among them.

With this style of "Buddy GM", the player who can convince the GM that their technique for disarming a trap or opening a lock would work will fare better - even without relevant skills - than a player whose character actually had the relevant skills.

With this style of GM, you are always thinking outside the character sheet, outside the box.

[Darth Ultron]

So, I'm not sure where you were going with this, but let me explain what I'm not talking about.

So, there's a line, that runs from "adversarial GM" through "neutral rules arbiter" to "fan of the PCs". And that's not what I'm trying to describe.

What I am trying to describe is a GM who focuses on Player Skills; or, rather, one Player Skill in particular: ability to convince the GM.

Now, this particular Player Skill happens to have several components: personal charisma, knowledge(GM), and relationship to the GM are among them.

With this style of "Buddy GM", the player who can convince the GM that their technique for disarming a trap or opening a lock would work will fare better - even without relevant skills - than a player whose character actually had the relevant skills.

With this style of GM, you are always thinking outside the character sheet, outside the box.



Well, what your describing does not even come close to what I'd call a Buddy DM. The Buddy DM is the best friend to all players always who is a push over that not only creates the game world to be super easy for the players, but also does not even try to make things even a vague challenge for the players and lets them do whatever they want (aka ''win"). They are quite common in casual games where everyone just wants to ''toss some dice around for a couple minutes", but also creep into other types of games.

Your talking about a Mark DM (?) A DM that is open to any pitch a player can make that can convince(or even ''con") them of something or the other.

But the Mark DM is in on way a ''buddy" to the players, after all the player must use a lot of skill and ability to convince he DM ''for real" that the character can do something in the game. Unless your talking about a super silly Mark DM that alters game reality and is like ''ok dokie your character tosses some sand in the air and 'wow--zinner' it jams all traps and you get the treasure!"

Now, i'm sure on the Role Playing side and I greatly am against Roll Playing. Just to be clear, when I say Roll Playing I'm talking about very by the rule game play: like a video game or a classic board game. The very robotic where a ''character game piece" moves and takes a ''game rule action". The whole point of a game like D&D, is that it is MORE then the sum of it's parts....it's MORE then just a list of Almighty Rules.

However, when playing a game like D&D, I'm not into the whole Random Free-form Mess where anyone can just do anything. The whole point of playing a game IS to have rules. Rules stop(most..) hours long (and sometimes endless) parts where people 'talk' at each other for hours about ''how an arrow would hit a tree".

So the end result is I'm a Shared Reality DM, that wants Players in the same Shared Reality. I want players to use both role playing and roll playing using the rules of the game. But, not in any way for ''real" : I want it to be ''unreal", in the Shared Fantasy.

[Tanarii]

What I am trying to describe is a GM who focuses on Player Skills; or, rather, one Player Skill in particular: ability to convince the GM.

Now, this particular Player Skill happens to have several components: personal charisma, knowledge(GM), and relationship to the GM are among them.It sounds like you're taking the concept of a Buddy DM, or Personal Relationship DM, and adding a bunch of stuff to it.

[Potato_Priest]

Well, if everyone has fun and laughs about ridiculous antics, then having a "buddy gm" is probably the best (perhaps the only kind) for you.

[Mechalich]

So, a while back, the phrase "Buddy GM" got thrown around. IIRC, most of the participating members of the playground defined it as I will here: as a GM who, if you're his "buddy", and can convince him of the reasonableness of your action, it will work, regardless of what is on the character sheet.

What you're describing is a GM who runs their game as 'Magic Tea Party' arbitrated primarily via 'Mother May I' wherein the principle rule is 'what you can do is whatever you can convince the GM to let you do.' The GM need not be especially friendly, you could have a GM run this sort of game and never allow anything, but since such games tend to end rather swiftly that's not common and most half-way successful games of this time involve GMs who are reasonably permissive.

Now, certain types of games are actually designed to work this way (usually badly). Mage: The Ascension has a magic system that is almost entirely 'Mother May I' since to produce an effect you have to first convince the GM that your character can even make the attempt and since the level of success required is totally arbitrary the GM also decides whether you succeeded or not.

This can work in the same way that freeform gaming can work, but it requires consistency and impartiality on the part of the GM, trust among the players, and a generally light-hearted and usually low-immersion approach. The principle problem is that, since the rules (or lack thereof) require the GM to constantly make judgments, there is essentially no boundary between in-game and out-of-game conflicts and even the perception of favoritism can swiftly rip a table apart.


Now, this particular Player Skill happens to have several components: personal charisma, knowledge(GM), and relationship to the GM are among them.

These aren't skills, they are personality traits or social statuses. A player who has a dominant personality and is willing to fast talk a lot will dominate in such a game, so will a player who knows the GM and what particular lines of BS (we're talking about fantasy gaming, all the justifications are inherently BS) they prefer, and characters with close relationships with the GM will almost certainly receive preferential treatment from even the most self-aware GMs. In oWoD circles, being the significant other/spouse of the Storyteller was sometimes called 'the 14-point merit.'

Games like this tend to implicitly punish introverted or shy players, new players, or players who are socially distant from the others outside of the game. Game systems based on this sort of setup - like the oWoD LARP community, tend to develop a reputation for elitist insularity. So there are real costs.


In general, insofar as a system demands active arbitration or regular rulings regarding permisibility from a GM - and many well-thought of systems like FATE absolutely do this - the GM should actually try to act even less like everyone's 'buddy' and as even-handed as possible. A well-designed system of this nature will also have clear rules for resolving them and/or managing the metagame elements that result. Ex. in FATE accepting a compel means getting a fate point, so if the GM goes after a specific player repeatedly they'll end up sitting on a giant pile of points.

[Pelle]

As a player and GM, I want the fiction to make sense. If players are describing what their characters are doing well enough so that it convinces the GM that it should automatically work, no rules need to be invoked, that will make the game experience better for me on either side of the table. If what the player says is convincing, i.e. nothing else makes sense in the fiction, not letting it work is going to be a failure anyways.

[Jay R]

So, a while back, the phrase "Buddy GM" got thrown around. IIRC, most of the participating members of the playground defined it as I will here: as a GM who, if you're his "buddy", and can convince him of the reasonableness of your action, it will work, regardless of what is on the character sheet.

The pros are found in the idea that if you "can convince him of the reasonableness of your action, it will work."

The cons are all wrapped up in "if you're his 'buddy'."

[Florian]

So, a while back, the phrase "Buddy GM" got thrown around. IIRC, most of the participating members of the playground defined it as I will here: as a GM who, if you're his "buddy", and can convince him of the reasonableness of your action, it will work, regardless of what is on the character sheet.

Hm? The actual context of the "Buddy GM" was not a permissive kind of gm, or fan of the characters, but rather a situation when the players are in full control of the game, with the gm not only being reduced to the state of rules arbiter, but rather in a completely passive role of service provider on demand. No challenge there.

[TheFamilarRaven]

So, I'm not sure where you were going with this...

The point that I was trying make was that when one, (or at least me), hears the term "Buddy GM", it calls forth the image of a GM that is overly lenient to either their friends or all their players. It does not necessarily bring to mind a GM open to being convinced that an action would work in spite of whats written on a sheet. Indeed it is my impression that the above posters feel the same way unless I'm way off the mark. I might add that I was not part of the original discussion, so the origin of the term and the discussion is not something I am privy to.

And thus I attempted to define as unambiguously as possible my personal definition for the so called "Buddy GM", reinforcing said definition with an example or two. And I would like to say that your given example,


With this style of "Buddy GM", the player who can convince the GM that their technique for disarming a trap or opening a lock would work will fare better - even without relevant skills - than a player whose character actually had the relevant skills.

does fall into my definition of "Buddy GM". In this particular case, the player performed an action that goes against the intended (indeed the actual), rules of the game, provided it is not a freeform game. The player violated the intended rules by not rolling the appropriate check, and only got away with it because the GM wanted him to succeed, regardless of whether the GM just likes the player or was convinced the player's method would work.

TL;DR What I attempted to put forth was a broader definition of "Buddy GM" that encompasses your vision of what the term means but also incorporates the image that most often comes to mind when one hears the phrase.

[geppetto]

I'd say I'm a buddy GM. I definitely dont want players to be restricted to their character sheet or Raw. If you can explain why you can use a skill to accomplish something thats reasonable I'll let it work. Same with things like traps or other situations.

The benefit is that it gets players thinking more about being in character in the world rather then worrying about whats on the sheet. There are plenty of things the rules dont cover or cover poorly and I dont intend to be limited by them or want the players to be so limited. Its also a lot easier for new players to just be able to say what they want to do rather then worrying about learning all the rules.

For instance if there are traps on a floor and a player wants to throw something to set them off early I'm not going to say "sorry you dont have X skill so your incapable of tossing a weight onto a pressure plate" because thats just stupid. Or if you want to jump off of something and grab an enemy to pull them with you over the edge I'm not going to stop the game to scour the books trying to find what rule or option would let you do that. I'm just going to say make an attack roll and a STR check to hold on. Is that the rule? Probably not. Do I care? Not a bit. The player wanted to do something they thought was cool and we quickly found a way to make it work, or not but its possible.

Thats what matters. Making things they want to do possible without letting the rules be a straight jacket.

[Geddy2112]

I tend to run games like this to some extent. As a GM, it is your duty to decide when dice are rolled, what the DC is, and then the consequences of said action. Normally, we have rules to arbitrate these situations. Sometimes the rules are vague, other times they are missing, and sometimes they are unnecessary or take away from the game as a whole.

For me, it is about rolling when 1. there is a chance for the action to fail and 2. failure vs success matters.

So it is not about being buddy buddy with my players. It is about not making them roll when there is no chance for failure and/or no difference in the outcome. If my players do something that should work, or convince me would work, I as the GM reserve the right to decide to call for a roll or determine automatic success. I can also determine automatic failure of an action as well, but I use that card very sparingly.

[Jay R]

I mostly agree with Geddy2112. In fact, it was essential when running original D&D. The rules were basically just 29 sheets of paper, folded over into 3 booklets, and couldn't cover everything.

But I need to quibble – just a little bit – with one statement.


For me, it is about rolling when 1. there is a chance for the action to fail and 2. failure vs success matters.

This is slightly overstated. It is about rolling when there is more than one possible result, even if all possible results are failures or all possible results are successes.

If you tell the king that his daughter has been kidnapped, all results are successes – you will convince him to try to rescue her. But that success might be:

1. Providing the PCs with provisions,
2. Providing them a couple of magic items and some henchmen, or
3. Promising one of them half his lands and the princess's hand in marriage if you save her.

Similarly, when trying diplomacy on the evil priest, he may hold your PCs prisoner, torture them, or put them to death. None of these are successes, but the difference still matters.

[Geddy2112]

This is slightly overstated. It is about rolling when there is more than one possible result, even if all possible results are failures or all possible results are successes.

I do agree with this completely. Degrees of success or failure matter as well, and I should have explicitly said such. The explanation succeeds, but could have been better.

[Knaight]

These aren't skills, they are personality traits or social statuses. A player who has a dominant personality and is willing to fast talk a lot will dominate in such a game, so will a player who knows the GM and what particular lines of BS (we're talking about fantasy gaming, all the justifications are inherently BS) they prefer, and characters with close relationships with the GM will almost certainly receive preferential treatment from even the most self-aware GMs. In oWoD circles, being the significant other/spouse of the Storyteller was sometimes called 'the 14-point merit.'

Games like this tend to implicitly punish introverted or shy players, new players, or players who are socially distant from the others outside of the game. Game systems based on this sort of setup - like the oWoD LARP community, tend to develop a reputation for elitist insularity. So there are real costs.


Being able to fast talk is a skill. Being able to project charisma is a skill. Being able to read an audience and tailor an argument to them is several skills, the conventional four of rhetoric (kairos, logos, pathos, ethos). It's fine for games to reward those skills, and while you can interpret it as punishment for people who lack them that cuts both ways.

Let's look at D&D, as a familiar example. You could describe D&D as rewarding rules knowledge, math skills, and numerical optimisation. Alternately you could describe it as punishing people who don't have time to commit to learning rules, who aren't good at math, and who don't intuitively see mechanical synergies.

The habit within nerd circles of deeming one of these skill sets valid and other an unfair advantage is specious, and probably more a matter of one of them being common and the other rare more than anything else.

[Tvtyrant]

I honestly don't know how I feel about it. The tension is fairly thick between RPG as simulator and RPG as storytelling, and at times I prefer one or the other.

I really enjoy highly tactical combat based around positioning and timing, and enjoyed 4E in combat more then any other game.

I dislike having character traits be tied to mechanics, like how smart your character is or how strong they are being tied to combat mechanics or race. I also dislike binary rolls other then hit, binary diplomacy or sneaking is the worst mechanic in RPGs.

Having a DM who can change the rules is important to storytelling because simulations are limited, but it limits the story to the DMs willingness to go along.

So who knows, RPGs are inherently imperfect.

[Florian]

Hm... Just adding a little bit to what Knaight and TvTyrant said.

Basically, I see two very different levels:

The really important one is the level of the players themselves, the rules how we do conduct the actual game. It should be noted that "free form" can have way harder rules than "rules heavy" on that particular level.
The other level is what we delegate to and create rules for on the character level, the in-game, so to speak.

I put so much emphasis on the former, because this level is where the real decisions take place, before and during the actual game. The real question always is, who is the challenged party, the player directly or the character by way of abstraction? Some times, the division between "role play" and "roll play" is actually a good thing, when it is a clear and stated goal of a particular system which of the sides is addressed.

[Mechalich]

Being able to fast talk is a skill. Being able to project charisma is a skill. Being able to read an audience and tailor an argument to them is several skills, the conventional four of rhetoric (kairos, logos, pathos, ethos). It's fine for games to reward those skills, and while you can interpret it as punishment for people who lack them that cuts both ways.

A gaming table is a tiny social group, and will be dominated far more by the preset interpersonal relationships and personality traits of the players than any developed skills. Yes being able to fast talk is a skill, but having a conversation dominating extroverted personality is a trait. Reading an audience is a skill, being the DM's friend is a trait.

If you want table top to reward actual rhetorical skills that's one thing, but that really isn't how informal conversations between small groups unfold. You would have to distinctly manage the conversation in a formalized way - the way actual organizations attempting to conduct debate do - for that to be the case.

[geppetto]

A gaming table is a tiny social group, and will be dominated far more by the preset interpersonal relationships and personality traits of the players than any developed skills. Yes being able to fast talk is a skill, but having a conversation dominating extroverted personality is a trait. Reading an audience is a skill, being the DM's friend is a trait.

If you want table top to reward actual rhetorical skills that's one thing, but that really isn't how informal conversations between small groups unfold. You would have to distinctly manage the conversation in a formalized way - the way actual organizations attempting to conduct debate do - for that to be the case.

This is up to the GM to keep everyone engaged. Shy or outgoing doesnt matter with a good GM. Something thats equally true for the Roll play aspect of the game as the Role Play one.

Its only an illusion of control when you think the black and white rules are creating equality between players.

[Mechalich]

This is up to the GM to keep everyone engaged. Shy or outgoing doesnt matter with a good GM. Something thats equally true for the Roll play aspect of the game as the Role Play one.

Its only an illusion of control when you think the black and white rules are creating equality between players.

The OP postulated a scenario where the principle mechanic of the game is not 'roll a d20 against a target number' but rather 'convince your GM to give you what you want.' Doing this turns the game into a zero-sum contest to vie for the attention and approval of the GM, and it is inherently unequal due to implicit biases and traits of both the GM and the players.

Such setups are easily subverted and in many cases they actively reward bad behavior such as interrupting, talking over another person, trading on sex appeal, and outright bribery (the latter being particularly common is a player, and not the GM, has control over the venue).

In general the entire purpose of having a rule set is to defuse such personal, out of game conflicts and to introduce a neutral arbitrator to the dispute resolution process. Even when the rules barely work or produce nonsensical outcomes as is common in badly designed games, they can be immensely valuable by offering the illusion of neutral dispute resolution. Even most freeform or diceless games are going to have rules - like everyone gets a turn each round.

[Tvtyrant]

The OP postulated a scenario where the principle mechanic of the game is not 'roll a d20 against a target number' but rather 'convince your GM to give you what you want.' Doing this turns the game into a zero-sum contest to vie for the attention and approval of the GM, and it is inherently unequal due to implicit biases and traits of both the GM and the players.

Such setups are easily subverted and in many cases they actively reward bad behavior such as interrupting, talking over another person, trading on sex appeal, and outright bribery (the latter being particularly common is a player, and not the GM, has control over the venue).

In general the entire purpose of having a rule set is to defuse such personal, out of game conflicts and to introduce a neutral arbitrator to the dispute resolution process. Even when the rules barely work or produce nonsensical outcomes as is common in badly designed games, they can be immensely valuable by offering the illusion of neutral dispute resolution. Even most freeform or diceless games are going to have rules - like everyone gets a turn each round.

As opposed to rules which reward pedantism and spending far more time manipulating the game from outside then from actually playing it? And you are still playing mother may I, just with someone who wrote the rules down 10-30 years ago and may in fact not have been as smart as the players.

No system is perfect, I would hesitate to call either actually better then the other.

[Mechalich]

As opposed to rules which reward pedantism and spending far more time manipulating the game from outside then from actually playing it? And you are still playing mother may I, just with someone who wrote the rules down 10-30 years ago and may in fact not have been as smart as the players.

No system is perfect, I would hesitate to call either actually better then the other.

These are not mutually exclusive scenarios!

Yes certain games, of which 3.X D&D is one of them, encourage and reward excessive system mastery in a way that negatively impacts gameplay. That is a game design flaw. Having too many rules, or too much complexity of rules, reduces their capability as a dispute resolution system. It's not surprising that post-3.5 the move in the industry has been generally towards simplification and clarity. This hasn't always worked (4e), but the general trend is fairly clear. Ideally a rules system would cover the necessary gameplay space with clear and quick-to-learn rules and thereby provide the GM a solid foundation.

Even then though, in general a surplus of rules is better than 'mother may I' for most gaming groups. The exception, of course are long-running groups with well trusted GMs and players who know each other and their abilities and intents at the table. As one might expect the kind of people most likely to actively comment on the hobby are mostly likely to be such veteran gamers who play a lot. However, for online play, or convention or other social event play, or club play within a large umbrella (like a university) this really doesn't work and a more robust rule system is especially helpful.

[Florian]

Ah, well... that snake pit.

The difference between something like D&D and an near-RPG like DESCENT or Arkham Horror is quite subtle. I already mentioned that there're two very distinctive levels gaming can happen on to, this is when it really shows.

Near-RPGs work smoothly because the rules are set and every possible action comes from the rules and works within the boundary of the rules. Here, the rules for playing the game and the rules for playing the characters are identical.

The same principle basically can´t work for a true TTRPG. The main thing here is, that we're not talking about a finite and pre-defined set of actions and reactions. We can basically have any situation we want and react to it in any kind we want, as long as we stay within the rules for how we engage the game as players.

Blaming "Mother May I?" is actually way too simple and 3E-style "Player Empowerment" the wrong answer to it. We need both to function and be functional. Traditionally, the GM holds a dual roles: Providing shared entry into the imaginary space and being a knowledgable arbitrator on the rules and matters at hand.

It is easy to forget or misunderstand the original simulationist core of the rules: You only roll the dice when there's a doubt about the outcome. To grab a random example, it would mean that two experienced outdoor survivalists and hunters will talk shop and agree on the probability and feasibility of a specific actions or corse of actions, then come to an agreement, or that a mixed group of either in the know/not in the know or not in the know/not in the know will have to settle on using game mechanics to solve the issue.

We only got to this point because the hobby itself started to be attractive to different kinds of nerds beyond the initial war-gaming crowd. The urge to cover any possible topic with rules goes hand in hand with both, the more or less endless range of possibilities a TTRPG has, as well as trying to avoid a talk between (un)equals to settle the matter.

[Darth Ultron]

In general the entire purpose of having a rule set is to defuse such personal, out of game conflicts and to introduce a neutral arbitrator to the dispute resolution process.

The bigger problem here is Role playing games are unique, and not like other games. The reason is the DM, and to a lesser extent the Player can do anything. All other games limit actions in a game and everything else, but RPGs don't have anything like that.

The RPG rules set utterly does not matter within the simulated shared virtual world, except for the isolated spots where the rules are used. There are rules for using charisma skills or fighting skills to get past some guards, but not rules for ''what'' a guard is or how they will act and react.

In D&D 2E, for example the door guards might be: A)Dumb goblins, B)Smart drow C)A ghost or D) a magically intelligent and animated door. Or a lot of other things. And this has a great effects on the mechanics of the game: the wizard can't 'charm person' a ghost or door (or likely the drow).

[Knaight]

A gaming table is a tiny social group, and will be dominated far more by the preset interpersonal relationships and personality traits of the players than any developed skills. Yes being able to fast talk is a skill, but having a conversation dominating extroverted personality is a trait. Reading an audience is a skill, being the DM's friend is a trait.
It's really not that clean though. The skills feed into the traits (hence why people with some social skills make friends easily, and other without those social skills really struggle), and the other set of skills is similarly trait dependant. Probability math is a skill, having an intuitive knack for it more a trait, and knacks and talents often guide skill development to a high degree.


If you want table top to reward actual rhetorical skills that's one thing, but that really isn't how informal conversations between small groups unfold. You would have to distinctly manage the conversation in a formalized way - the way actual organizations attempting to conduct debate do - for that to be the case.
Rhetorical skills are hardly limited to debate, hence them usually being taught formally in the context of writing classes, and practices in both speech and writing in informal settings.

On top of that there is a more formal context here - there's an attempt by a player to depict a fictional context as plausible. That's a very different matter than just being someone's friend. I have close friends who are terrible at doing that, and have interacted with near strangers who are pretty good at it, even in a gaming context (friends of friends generally, vouched for and vetted, but who I don't personally know).

[Mordar]

The pros are found in the idea that if you "can convince him of the reasonableness of your action, it will work."

The cons are all wrapped up in "if you're his 'buddy'."

That's a pretty good summation of my thoughts on the matter.

To expound, I think my idea of Buddy GM is tied to a group of Buddy Players. They are all friends, working together to create a fun experience. Specifically, in this case, there is an established trust that exists between Buddy GM and Buddy Player(s) that goes beyond "We play by the rules" to include "When we go out of the normal bounds of the rules it is for all of us and our experience, not just me trying to break the game/be l33t/outshine everyone".

Now, if it is a situation where only one player benefits from that kind of relationship it can (IMO) go one of two ways...the other players learn from it and follow the lead, and they all become Buddy Players, or they resent the application completely and resentment builds.

I think I should point out that this is different in my mind than "My Little DM" or "My Little Player" where it really is one player that gets special treatment in all aspects because...well, they're the DM's pet. Apologies if I misunderstand the terms de art.

- M

[Jay R]

It's worth pointing out that this is how role-playing started. The rules for Dungeons and Dragons were on 29 sheets of paper folded over and put into pamphlets. The assumption was that the referee's job was to primarily to make judgement calls, since the rules didn't and couldn't cover everything.

[Florian]

It's worth pointing out that this is how role-playing started. The rules for Dungeons and Dragons were on 29 sheets of paper folded over and put into pamphlets. The assumption was that the referee's job was to primarily to make judgement calls, since the rules didn't and couldn't cover everything.

This is a bit of short-selling the whole issue.

D&D started as an extension of Chainmail, so war-gaming roots, which relied heavily on pre-existing knowledge of the participants.

When I was introduced to the hobby back then, the adults who GM´d for us were experienced war veterans, so we followed their lead when it came to decision what was or wasn't a possible outcome of a declared action.

For me, there was a marked difference when the occupation ended, the veterans went home and we still continued to play the game. We had a sudden loss of the fundamental knowledge that helped make a War-game or a skirmish-level game like D&D run smooth, so there was a pressing need to replace that loss of knowledge with a set of rules to emulate that knowledge.