Is it time to cut the war game roots of role-playing?

[Max_Killjoy]

Oh, ok. I thiught you were objecting to the idea of people playing non-combatant characters, when it really seems like you are more objecting to people who play Jar Jar / Tasselhoff.

It is in part the latter.

It's also in part the former, but more broadly than just regarding combat -- what I object to is when any X is a regular part of the game, and the character starts out and stubbornly stays so inept at X that it endangers the rest of the party, either literally or in terms of their eventual success at overcoming the challenges they encounter.

[Mordar]

Oh, ok. I thiught you were objecting to the idea of people playing non-combatant characters, when it really seems like you are more objecting to people who play Jar Jar / Tasselhoff.

Hey, whoa! Tasslehoff Burrfoot was pretty darn important and contributed a ton to the story of Dragonlance in general, and the success of the Heroes of the Lance in particular. Just because 1,000,000 people played incorrect versions of him in games after the novels came out doesn't besmirch his role in those novels!

But that Jar Jar cat can go stick his tongue in a light socket.

- M

[ImNotTrevor]

The problem comes when a certain sort of creative writing or dramatic fiction or lit-crit snobbery seeps in and turns that into "Flaws and failure are what MAKE a character, so the more flaws and failures, the better."

As someone who has been around a lot of writers and does some amateur fiction writing in his spare time, and reads a lot of writing advice...

Anyone claiming that flaws are what makes a character good is an idiot and doesn't actually understand what a Mary Sue is. Mary Sues who are poor helpless screwups with nothing going for them are widely considered exactly as bad a perfect paragons of skilledness. That you interact with the opposite of this opinion makes me think you may be spending an unusual amount of time around edgy 13-year-olds, who are the main core of people with this opinion.

Again, I'm firmly in the camp of "failure can be fun" or perhaps as "failure SHOULD be NOT-BORING." This is as well as I can word it.

If the party is fighting a spider, and loses, which is more fun:
They're all dead the end.

They wake up 2 hours later wrapped in spider silk with goblins rooting through their stuff.

Choose the fun one. Yes, this requires some improv ability. But it's way more interesting than a TPK.

Everyone got eaten by the Terrasque? Guess they're in a dungeon made of meat now.

Etc.

Failure should be not-boring.

[coffeeman]

Not every TTRPG follows that trend. Ryuutama is Oregon Trail, if it was told by Miyazaki. You're a group of people going from A to B and you're not Badass adventurers, you're like... a farmer, a merchant, a bright-eyed youth looking for adventure and a country girl who's going to join a convent and the game is basically the stuff that happens between A and B.

Does that make Ryuutama the superior game because it lacks the wargaming roots? Well, it's a poor game if you're looking to tell a story about adventurers dungeon delving and kicking in faces, but that's not what the game is about. I'm sure you can make it work with some tinkering, but that's largely missing the point in my opinion. D&D is way better at telling that story out of the box.

I came in here to recommend that very game, along with Golden Sky Stories, for those who are looking for an RPG that doesn't necessarily involve combat.

[Pelle]

Even the likes of Batman and Goku have character flaws they struggle to overcome and fail now and again.

I bolded what I feel is important. Having flaws is not an issue if you still try to succeed despite them.

Quote from Reiner Knizia about boardgames that I think can apply to RPGs as well:
'When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning'

meaning that as long as everyone tries to win, the game works and is fun to play, even if you lose. It's no fun winning or even playing a board game if your opponents actively tries to lose or simply don't care.

In an RPG, having your character actively trying to lose is not fun (to me). However, eventually losing can be fun as long as you have tried your best to avoid it!

[Jay R]

So, after reading the article I have to say that while I agree with much of what he says, overall he sounds a lot like my ex-DM. "Youre snowflake characters are but a neccesary evil which I must endure to fully express the glory that is my STORY! Behold its glory and despair ye mere players!"

Did we read the same article? His description starts with, "Job One for you as a player is to do stuff; you should be thinking, at all times – 'What are my goals? And what can I do to achieve them?' You are the stars of a very personal universe, ..."

He also says, "Your character is part of the story; this is not your character’s story." That is not stating or implying that characters are a necessary evil; it's making your character as important as any other, but no more so.

It is not true that either the individual character is the only thing that matters, or it doesn't matter at all. Both absurdly simplistic approaches are equally invalid. You're accusing him of pushing for one extreme, which is untrue. He merely pushed against the other one

Also, it seems like he wants a game where everyone is bored and no one has fun rather than risk any ine player stepping on anyone else's toes by having too much fun.

His advice for players would reduce the total amount of player/player drama and player/DM friction, thereby, in my estimation, increasing the total amount of fun.

The only reference to a snowflake character is tied to getting along with the group, and choosing character goals that won't prevent the other players from having fun as well.

It's not (in your words) "a game where everyone is bored and no one has fun rather than risk any ine player stepping on anyone else's toes by having too much fun." A better description is "a game where everyone is working together and everyone has fun rather than risk any one player stepping on anyone else's toes by having disruptive fun that prevents other players' fun."

His description of what a game should be matches virtually every great gaming experience with no player drama I've ever had, as a player or as a GM.

[Talakeal]

I bolded what I feel is important. Having flaws is not an issue if you still try to succeed despite them.

Quote from Reiner Knizia about boardgames that I think can apply to RPGs as well:
'When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning'

meaning that as long as everyone tries to win, the game works and is fun to play, even if you lose. It's no fun winning or even playing a board game if your opponents actively tries to lose or simply don't care.

In an RPG, having your character actively trying to lose is not fun (to me). However, eventually losing can be fun as long as you have tried your best to avoid it!

The problem with doing this most RPGS is that they dont have any (or atleast any good) mechanics for modelling personality flaws, and thus it is up to the player to set their own limits.

It is much easier in single author fiction where you can play up the character's struggles and weaknesses but still have them succeed (or lose) through author FIAT.

[Pelle]

Good point. It can be tricky to find the right balance. I guess it just hurts immersion for me if the game becomes too slapstick. Having a penalty in wisdom checks is enough of a flaw for me, it's not necessary to additionally insult kings and so on.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Flaws make a character interesting. But they're not the only thing that makes a character interesting, and they don't have to be crippling flaws.

[Talakeal]

Did we read the same article? His description starts with, "Job One for you as a player is to do stuff; you should be thinking, at all times – 'What are my goals? And what can I do to achieve them?' You are the stars of a very personal universe, ..."

He also says, "Your character is part of the story; this is not your character’s story." That is not stating or implying that characters are a necessary evil; it's making your character as important as any other, but no more so.

It is not true that either the individual character is the only thing that matters, or it doesn't matter at all. Both absurdly simplistic approaches are equally invalid. You're accusing him of pushing for one extreme, which is untrue. He merely pushed against the other one



His advice for players would reduce the total amount of player/player drama and player/DM friction, thereby, in my estimation, increasing the total amount of fun.

The only reference to a snowflake character is tied to getting along with the group, and choosing character goals that won't prevent the other players from having fun as well.

It's not (in your words) "a game where everyone is bored and no one has fun rather than risk any ine player stepping on anyone else's toes by having too much fun." A better description is "a game where everyone is working together and everyone has fun rather than risk any one player stepping on anyone else's toes by having disruptive fun that prevents other players' fun."

His description of what a game should be matches virtually every great gaming experience with no player drama I've ever had, as a player or as a GM.

It does not match my gaming experience.

I have had a lot of really great games with lots of in character drama where the DM wasn't really needed, my Mage group, for example, was the best game I was ever in and we all had very strong characters who we RPed first and foremost and who often had conflicting goals, and I often commented that though our DM was super great, we didn't really need him as we could spend the entire session simply talking in character and have a great time, and our conflicting character goals would make drama without needing a DM or PiS to make artificial conflict.

I have also had plenty of bad games that died when people just tried to go along with the flow and it made for a boring and bland game where nothing happens and we end up forgetting about it between sessions.

I agree that he doesn't flat out say that his awesome story is more important than the player's or their characters, but I have heard a lot of bad DMs use that sort of language in person to mean "You are the audience for my railroad. Don't get in the way!"

Honestly, reading the article more closely, he sounds a lot like good old Ron Edwards. This article really seems to boil down to "Narrative games uber alles, simulationist and gamist players are having bad-wrong-fun and should be excluded from the hobby lest they ruin our good time,"

I personally prefer elements of all tree, but I definitely prefer simulationist first, gamist a distant second, and narrativist a distant third. So to me a story should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, it is mostly an emergent property of simulationist and gamist play that only occasionally needs a little nudge upfront. I personally find that people coming into the game with expectations of where the story should go and trying to make it happen that way are a cause for a lot more conflict than letting it emerge organically. I know as a DM a lot of my biggest mistakes came from having a really cool scene set up and then trying to force the players into a position where they can observe it play out the way I have imagined.

But that is just my opinion, I am not going to write an article that goes out of its way to insult and berate people with different priorities and explain to them why they are problem players who are doing it wrong.

I thought about writing out a point by point rebuttal of his article, but then I realized I probably shouldn't derail this thread with an eleven topic analysis of a five year old article on a different site that is only tangentially related to the topic at hand.


Also, it is kind of weird and hypocritical that he hates kender and their players but then praises players who go out of their way to get other characters involved in their adventures when it would be easier to everyone involved not to do so.

It is in part the latter.

It's also in part the former, but more broadly than just regarding combat -- what I object to is when any X is a regular part of the game, and the character starts out and stubbornly stays so inept at X that it endangers the rest of the party, either literally or in terms of their eventual success at overcoming the challenges they encounter.

If someone doesn't want to participate in a certain part of the game, why should you begrudge them that? For example, I have plenty of players who only show up for the combat and just zone out for the talky bits and vice versa, and these people typically make their character in such a way that they are focused around doing the things they like. Why begrudge them that and force them to contribute to parts of the hobby which they don't personally enjoy but are still willing to be an active audience and somewhat passive participant to while still remaining a part of the group and contributing to the parts of the hobby they do enjoy?

Now, the Game System might have something to do with this. A game that doesn't allow people to contribute in combat without blasting away at the enemy (like that time I tried to play a bard in stupid 4E grrrr.....) might make this a problem, but many games allow for a support role in combat that still helps the team.

It is also partly the DM's fault, if they are doing tightly balanced combats but not taking into account individual abilities, that is one them. If, for example, I have a group of four warriors and a civilian and I tightly balance my fights CR so that it takes 5 warriors to make it a fair fight I am doing it wrong.


Now, in character, I can see getting frustrated about a party member's lack of combat skills and berating them or urging them to pick up training / change their ways. But, ideally, you still have a reason to travel with them. In most games if someone is helpless in combat they are really good in other areas, and if those other areas are things you need to do your missions (again DM responsibility) then you still put up with it. Imagine a heist movie where one of the guys on the team is a nerdy little computer hacker or safe cracker and the big burly macho gun guys on the team have the job of getting them past the guards so they can do their work in peace. Honestly, you probably wouldn't want such a character to participate in the combat as if they step out of cover during a fire fight to take a shot they are more likely to be shot in return and taken out thus compromising the mission.

Or, even if they have no useful skills, make up an RP reason. Maybe they are playing your kid sister or your girlfriend, and you recognize that they are in danger with you, but they are soft and innocent and it is a dangerous world, they depend on you and wouldn't make it on their own. So you bring them along, do your best to keep them safe, and when the fighting starts you tell them to keep their head down and try to stay safe while you do what has to be done.

Hey, whoa! Tasslehoff Burrfoot was pretty darn important and contributed a ton to the story of Dragonlance in general, and the success of the Heroes of the Lance in particular. Just because 1,000,000 people played incorrect versions of him in games after the novels came out doesn't besmirch his role in those novels!

But that Jar Jar cat can go stick his tongue in a light socket.

- M

I actually really like Tasslehoff. But you do have to admit that, while he did save the day more than once, he got the party into more problems than he got them out of. But yeah, the kender does attract a certain annoying type of problem player at the table.

[CharonsHelper]

I agree that he doesn't flat out say that his awesome story is more important than the player's or their characters, but I have heard a lot of bad DMs use that sort of language in person to mean "You are the audience for my railroad. Don't get in the way!"

Honestly, reading the article more closely, he sounds a lot like good old Ron Edwards. This article really seems to boil down to "Narrative games uber alles, simulationist and gamist players are having bad-wrong-fun and should be excluded from the hobby lest they ruin our good time,"

From this and your other threads, Talakeal, I think that you have a tendency to read people you don't know well in the absolute worst light possible.

Because I certainly didn't read any of that in the article AT ALL.

Also, it is kind of weird and hypocritical that he hates kender and their players but then praises players who go out of their way to get other characters involved in their adventures when it would be easier to everyone involved not to do so.

Is there anyone who doesn't hate kender? I was under the impression that they held a place in D&D nerd-dom similar to Jar Jar's in Star Wars. Hate of them (Tasslehoff notwithstanding) is the common ground that we can all sing Kumbaya on.

[Max_Killjoy]

Flaws make a character interesting. But they're not the only thing that makes a character interesting, and they don't have to be crippling flaws.

True, but it's a shame we can't get more of the lit-fic crowd and those they influence to realize that malignantly useless protagonists are not the height "realism".

[FreddyNoNose]

Hey, whoa! Tasslehoff Burrfoot was pretty darn important and contributed a ton to the story of Dragonlance in general, and the success of the Heroes of the Lance in particular. Just because 1,000,000 people played incorrect versions of him in games after the novels came out doesn't besmirch his role in those novels!

But that Jar Jar cat can go stick his tongue in a light socket.

- M

Well said! The Kender hatred is strong around these parts.

[Talakeal]

From this and your other threads, Talakeal, I think that you have a tendency to read people you don't know well in the absolute worst light possible.

Because I certainly didn't read any of that in the article AT ALL.

Really? Because he flat out says repeatedly that story trumps character and people who value character integrity of drama are problem players and/or playing the game wrong.

Which is his point of view, but not one I share. All of my bests games, both as a PC and a DM, have been character driven with the plot as a mere backdrop. Heck, most of my favorite books and movies are the same way.

Which is a fine opinion for him to have, I just don't agree with it. But he writes the article going out of his way to be belligerent (mostly for effect), which is going to provoke stronger reactions.


In my experience DM's who go on and on about how great the story is are just using it to justify their railroading. Heck, I have had multiple people accuse me of doing the same thing as a game designer, that by putting my Setting chapter before my Character Creation chapter I am implicitly telling them that their stories will never be as important as my own.



Edit: I just realized that the linked article is actually a highly abridged version of the original, rather than merely censoring the profanity the clean version uses much milder language all around and cuts out a lot of the meat of the original. So I might actually be responding to things that are in the original but not in the article that was actually linked.

[Max_Killjoy]

Really? Because he flat out says repeatedly that story trumps character and people who value character integrity of drama are problem players and/or playing the game wrong.

Which is his point of view, but not one I share. All of my bests games, both as a PC and a DM, have been character driven with the plot as a mere backdrop. Heck, most of my favorite books and movies are the same way.

Which is a fine opinion for him to have, I just don't agree with it. But he writes the article going out of his way to be belligerent (mostly for effect), which is going to provoke stronger reactions.


In my experience DM's who go on and on about how great the story is are just using it to justify their railroading. Heck, I have had multiple people accuse me of doing the same thing as a game designer, that by putting my Setting chapter before my Character Creation chapter I am implicitly telling them that their stories will never be as important as my own.



Edit: I just realized that the linked article is actually a highly abridged version of the original, rather than merely censoring the profanity the clean version uses much milder language all around and cuts out a lot of the meat of the original. So I might actually be responding to things that are in the original but not in the article that was actually linked.

I should read the original, then -- because maybe it contains what I see hints of in the abridged version.

The abridged version appears to be giving some fairly good advice if the advice is taken in moderation, but the wording hints at a far more aggressive and counter-productive stance than that.

There are a couple of places where a generous reading chalks it up to writing style, but a cynical reading really does leave the abridged article coming across as "sit down, shut up, and know your character's narrative role, pleb". Or as you put it, the Edwardian assertion that "your character is a nobody".


E: IMO, there should be a setting summary, at least, before character creation. Characters, like people, don't come into existence in a vacuum, and players should be making their characters with the setting in mind.

[ImNotTrevor]

True, but it's a shame we can't get more of the lit-fic crowd and those they influence to realize that malignantly useless protagonists are not the height "realism".

I'm still unsure of how many authors you think are doing this or preaching this outside of strange corners of Deviantart.

Usually a "helpless" protagonist is meant to be an easy association for a reader entering a new world. They are disoriented, unsure, and learning a lot of information. The reader, incidentally, is in a very similar position. It's a pretty good way to ease a reader into a new world, and the character's arc will usually involve increasing mastery of their world. The two biggest examples I can think of come from literature for adolescents:
Harry Potter and Eragon.
Aside from subjective quality discussions, these two characters have "plucky underdog: the character arc" for the first book and improve from there. Using this sort of structure in TRPGs has been a thing since Gygax days.

Parallels to literary structures are not unwelcome, in my mind, because while TRPGs create (or imo should create) and Emergent Narrative, the language of story is already there for our use and it's not exactly a stretch in most cases. (We use terms like Character, plot, plot-twist, scene, dialogue, character development/growth, and others that far more often describe literary ideas.)

Sure, some low-talent writers substitute flaws for actually interesting character development. I'm just not sure if I've seen anyone declare in no uncertain terms that More Flaws = better characters anywhere but in edgy teenagers. I know people who personally prefer deeply flawed characters, but none that declared this as objectively better. I'm genuinely interested to know where you're finding these people that are supposedly everywhere.

(I suppose if you count dime-novel fantasy and the like then I could see Sentimentality being the real big pusher, leading to comically stupid flaws and characters who stagnate. But that's a different problem based on laziness, not perceived superiority.)

[Tanarii]

I think another thing we have to break away from as an industry (and again, this is largely an issue because we're a nerd hobby) is this idea that we can't make mistakes. Don't get me wrong, if you find you're making a mistake, and it could make things better to correct it, then by all means correct it. But if you're having fun, and you're playing your games and everything is going swimmingly, mistakes or no, it doesn't matter. What matters is you're gaming. Mistakes are house rules, nothing more, nothing less.

Mistakes are things that negatively impact the gaming experience. If you then write them off as, or turn them into, house-rules, which is unfortunately common, then you're not making things better. You're making things worse.

[ImNotTrevor]

Mistakes are things that negatively impact the gaming experience. If you then write them off as, or turn them into, house-rules, which is unfortunately common, then you're not making things better. You're making things worse.

We discovered soft T-rex tissue in a fossil because an intern made a mistake.

We have the Slinky due to a mistake. (Obviously one of the world's most important inventions)

Some of my favorite gaming moment came from us making mistakes, figuring that was probably wrong, and deciding to just roll with it this one time. (Or, when we discovered our ruling made more sense, we tossed the old rule out and used our quickfix instead.)

Defining mistakes as things that worsen the gaming experience means that some rules are mistakes. Meaning that doing it CORRECTLY can be a mistake.

Not sure this is the right way to go.

[Tanarii]

Defining mistakes as things that worsen the gaming experience means that some rules are mistakes. Meaning that doing it CORRECTLY can be a mistake.

/shrug. Yes. So what?

Of course, "worsen the gaming experience" will mean completely different things to different people.

[ImNotTrevor]

/shrug. Yes. So what?

Probably the part where Mistake has a generally accepted meaning and doing something correctly being a mistake is directly the opposite of that definition. :P

Of course, "worsen the gaming experience" will mean completely different things to different people.

Sure. Just that within the context of the quote he clearly means "mistake" to mean "enforcing a rule in a manner inconsistent with what it says to do. Aka incorrectly."

Broadening the term "mistake" to be anything that worsens the gaming experience makes the distinction between GM mistakes and poor game design meaningless.

[Aotrs Commander]

I consider myself a wargamer first and a roleplayer second, and a good chunk of my group are the same way.

n my weekly games I run a hideous mutant hybird of 3.4/PF labeled 3.Aotrs, running, typically adventure paths (and previously, convcerted AD&D modules, as even I no longer have the tiem to write a whole weekly campaign).

In general, being APs, this is fairly heavily focussed on combat.

When I write my own adventures for our day quests, I tend to find I end up writing a typically different sort of game.

About half of these games are in Rolemaster, which does not lend itself well to the same level of tactical thinking and combat as D&D. In fact, a great deal of my RM games (in sc-fi) ended up being very explore-y, with relatively little combat.

I have started a new RM party a couple of years ago, and went the whole hog - the party are in fact a (coincidentally) evil undead version of Stargate SG-1. The characters were all designes such that all of them (while they were expected to be able to ight when required, at least to a degree) had plenty of skills for doing other things and the whole thing works really rather well.

The party i am currently writing a day quest for is another Evil party, this time in D&D and basically a dirty black ops team for the Dark Lord. Again, while they are expected to be fairly combat capable, the PCs were also created to be capable of doing that sort of undercover work - and unlike the weekly adventures, combat is very mcuh a secondary function. (In fact, aside from them melting the face off that one dude, I don't think they had a fight that entire last adventure and they executed (which is not actually an inaccurate turn of phrase!) their mission goals with absolute perfection.

Part of this bias is, of course, that combats take quite a lot of the limited time a day session has, so I try not to have more than one or two at most, and there is the chance there could be none at all.



So to some extent, if you want to play a game where combat is a lesser role, you need "only" to change the fundemental basis of the campaign. the Umbra Vigiles, as mention above are D&D characters in the D&D world, but are very far removed in the sort of game they play in. You could agre that other systems might do the job better than D&D, but given as the camapign world was developed as a D&D one, it would be more faff than it was worth to change it around.

(And I'd only use Rolemaster then. I don't believe in using a different game with different game rules for the sake of it (and usually very underwhelmed by other sets). If I have to adjudicate primarily on the fly and make up difficulty targets, why am I paying money for it, I always say. I don't really care for fanciness is conflict resolution; the dice are there to do a job and the roll of a single dice (two if you're using percentiles) is plenty enough to do the job, as far as I'm concerned.)



You can legitimate me accuse me of being a DM who creates essentially a module for the players to play (and I have my player's characters fit to the game, not vice-versa), but given that I am by necessity, a prep-heavy DM (typically, a day quest file runs to the length of about 10-12 pages of type 10 font, sometimes in two columns), that's the price of admission. My games, I'm sure. would not be to the tastes of everyone, but considering people still turn up week after week after twenty five years, (and I have more players than spaces for my day games!) I can't do be doing too much wrong...!

(For the very brave and insane I actually did a riduclously long post-up of the first two-part (i.e. two day quest) adventure for the aforementioned Evil Lich SG-1 team on the forums. Granted, as this was the set-up for the party of the next twenty or so real years, it took a little more set-up than usual, but the level is about where I set pretty much all of the games I make myself. Lots of exploration and Finding Out Stuff, with a bit of combat occasionally.

The party they are going to "replace" will have existed for twenty-two years by the time I do their last adventure for my 40th in a couple of year's time. Unquiely - and let's see if anyone can to this - one of the characters is onto her third player and had achieved the feat of being older (in real years) than her actualm player. (The character belonged to my eldest sister, passed to my youngest sister when she took it up and finally has passed to my eldest sister's daughter, now my youngest sister's son has been born...!))

[1337 b4k4]

Mistakes are things that negatively impact the gaming experience. If you then write them off as, or turn them into, house-rules, which is unfortunately common, then you're not making things better. You're making things worse.

To be fair, I did say if things would be made better by fixing it, then fix it. My concern is that there is A LOT of pressure on GMs to perform perfectly, or at least to perform better than any of the players at the table. To me this is a detriment to our hobby. Playing the role of the GM is a vital part of the hobby and we should give just as much leeway to GMs as we do players to not have system mastery. To that end, not putting such a heavy emphasis on doing things "right" would go a long way towards encouraging more people to try their hand at GMing and possibly even do so on an infrequent basis even if they don't do it regularly. The pre-AD&D attitude (and the non TSR Owner Gary Gygax attitude) of "do what fits for your table and your world" is infinitely more welcoming to new GMs than the later eras of "you must play by all of these rules, or you aren't Doing It Right™". GMs (and new GMs especially) are going to make mistakes, sometimes they won't harm anything, sometimes they will. I feel experienced players have an obligation to distinguish between the two, and also to know when it's important to bring it up right now at the table (IMO almost never) and when it's better to take the GM aside after the fact for an FYI, and likewise when it's important to remind them that it's not the way the rules say, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to change it. It can be a Bob Ross Happy Accident instead.

[Tanarii]

Probably the part where Mistake has a generally accepted meaning and doing something correctly being a mistake is directly the opposite of that definition. :P

Sure. Just that within the context of the quote he clearly means "mistake" to mean "enforcing a rule in a manner inconsistent with what it says to do. Aka incorrectly."

Broadening the term "mistake" to be anything that worsens the gaming experience makes the distinction between GM mistakes and poor game design meaningless.

Considering I'm the one that made the original comment and used the term mistake, I'm just telling you what I meant.

To be fair, I did say if things would be made better by fixing it, then fix it. My concern is that there is A LOT of pressure on GMs to perform perfectly, or at least to perform better than any of the players at the table. To me this is a detriment to our hobby. Playing the role of the GM is a vital part of the hobby and we should give just as much leeway to GMs as we do players to not have system mastery. To that end, not putting such a heavy emphasis on doing things "right" would go a long way towards encouraging more people to try their hand at GMing and possibly even do so on an infrequent basis even if they don't do it regularly. The pre-AD&D attitude (and the non TSR Owner Gary Gygax attitude) of "do what fits for your table and your world" is infinitely more welcoming to new GMs than the later eras of "you must play by all of these rules, or you aren't Doing It Right™". GMs (and new GMs especially) are going to make mistakes, sometimes they won't harm anything, sometimes they will. I feel experienced players have an obligation to distinguish between the two, and also to know when it's important to bring it up right now at the table (IMO almost never) and when it's better to take the GM aside after the fact for an FYI, and likewise when it's important to remind them that it's not the way the rules say, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to change it. It can be a Bob Ross Happy Accident instead.

Okay fair enough. And sorry if I was argumentative. My primary purpose was to tell you what I meant, since it didn't seem like you understood. But I also tend to go into 'argumentative' mode in responding to comments.

I agree that new DMs can be overly focused on getting the rules 'right'. But IMX that's far more common in the middle phase of player and DM evolution. IMX we mostly tend to go through 3 phases:
1) Wild West because we don't know the rules but holy crap this is FUN!
2) Slavishly sticking to the rules
3) understanding the purpose of rules, and modifying them or disregarding them if they don't work for us. And realizing we missed some important ones that would have improved the game play experience.

Of course some people go to 2b) rules are for suckers! We don't want no rules in our talky-time gaming sessions! Real players talky-time their characters, they don't roll dice!