If they say they won't do it even though they lost the diplomacy check, yeah, what Scott said.
But that point, they're just not a very good RPer in that sense. There can be certain situations where this doesn't count (Despite the Diplomacy check, it goes completely against that character's entire moral fiber to do that they are being asked to do), but generally if the character has no meta-knowledge that would stop them from listening to the person, and they aren't a super jerk who usually doesn't do what people say, the player should go along with the check. If any of the above things are true, the player shouldn't have been initiated into the Diplomacy check or whatever. It should be a situation where they can't be persuaded into doing something due to their backstory, alignment, or temperament.
In the specific case listed above, if the characters background made it so that she was dead-set against letting this succubus out, and the succubus had no magical way to force her to open the cage, then that's it, at least on that one character. Maybe she seduces another PC, or finds a magical way to get out, or picks the locks. The problem is having your plot hinge on one thing going one way, without having the flexibility to deal with failures or PC backgrounds.
You can't really handle that gracefully sometimes. On the one hand, the dice don't/can't lie. On the other hand, player agency...
As a DM, I'm extremely uncomfortable taking direct control over a PC, except in cases of charm/mind control by an NPC.
Yeah that's my problem. I want the player to RP, not have to brain slug onto their character.
There is no solution to this problem if you insist on playing D&D.
Yes, yes. Burning Wheel is the solution to all of man's problems. Unfortunately, not all of us are capable, willing, or ready to convert our entire groups over.
(cue Will's head exploding due to him thinking I'm a BW fanboy in 3... 2...)
Hey, how do you handle influence checks on PCs without manually forcing them to act in a way contrary to their intuition? HOW? If a succubus succeeds at persuading a character to release them from a magic circle on the dice, how do you get an unwilling player to comply?
Before roll. "The succubus is trying to make you to do x, it's using charm against your willpower, if she succeeds you do x, ok?" and after die roll "So, the succubus succeeds, tell me how you do x." If the player refuses, refer to the rule "Don't be a dick." refusing to comply to a rule you have agreed is pretty dick move and if player has problems with the thing before the dice are rolled, things can and should be talked out of character.
As a DM, I'm extremely uncomfortable taking direct control over a PC, except in cases of charm/mind control by an NPC.
Use a diceless freeform system, then there would be nothing to take control of characters out of players hands. (Almost) any time there is dice involved no player has true freedom over his charcter, no matter how much player wants their character to be worlds greatest swordsman if they fail at all their swording roll, they are probably pretty shitty swordsman.
There is no solution to this problem if you insist on playing D&D.
Yes, yes. Burning Wheel is the solution to all of man's problems. Unfortunately, not all of us are capable, willing, or ready to convert our entire groups over.
(cue Will's head exploding due to him thinking I'm a BW fanboy in 3... 2...)
Actually I don't think Burning Wheel would be a solution to this particular problem. Persuasion in it is pretty much game winning skill of mind control.
As a DM, I'm extremely uncomfortable taking direct control over a PC, except in cases of charm/mind control by an NPC.
Use a diceless freeform system, then there would be nothing to take control of characters out of players hands. (Almost) any time there is dice involved no player has true freedom over his charcter, no matter how much player wants their character to be worlds greatest swordsman if they fail at all their swording roll, they are probably pretty shitty swordsman.
I think that's oversimplifying the issue a bit. Also, I'm talking about when I, directly as the Dm, say "This is the exact thing you're doing and you get no input on the matter", not "You missed, next initiative". There's a huge spectrum between the two.
I think that's oversimplifying the issue a bit. Also, I'm talking about when I, directly as the Dm, say "This is the exact thing you're doing and you get no input on the matter", not "You missed, next initiative". There's a huge spectrum between the two.
Then I repeat something I've heard countless times in different rpg podcasts "Talk to your players" and my "don't be a dick". At some point in the game, at least when the issue comes up the group should talk about things like "mind control" and how it's handled. It is perfectly fine to choose to play in a way where no persuasion or charm skills are used to manipulate player characters (or any characters, however you want it), but when certain rules are set and agreed upon then I except players to follow them. Player saying something like; "Well, mind control by charm was totally ok when it happened to John, but I don't like it when it happens to me," is, once again, a dick move.
Maybe part of being a good DM is anticipating what your players will most likely do given a situation and plan according to that.
Like when I listened to the Penny Arcade D&D sessions I would basically be the equivalent of Gabe with Jim Darkmagic but the DM in those situations seemed to expect this behavior and just kinda roll with the punches.
I dunno, I've only played D&D a handful of times though.
This is a big topic, and I think idea of a social contract for gaming is being confused with the actual way to run games.
My replies here are for RPGs in general, not necessary D&D (since the post mentioned a DM).
1) For mechanics questions, consult one book
Unless it's a matter of life and death, have the GM make a decision and look up the answer after the game and go over it next session. If everyone's learning the system, though, stopping to figure it out can make a lot of sense.
2) Do your best not to rely too heavily on another person for rulings or questions.
If they know the answers (e.g., have read the book more thoroughly than you), then I don't see a problem with this.
3) "Say yes or roll the dice".
Some systems are quite specific on when to roll. Personally, though, I play with systems that have this rule.
4) Don't violate player agency.
I agree, but there's probably a better way to state it.
5) Reward creativity.
More generally, reward behaviors you want to see in play. Hopefully, if you've picked the right system for your game, the system's specified rewards and outcomes match the feel of the game everyone wants to play.
Had I wanted to stop it, I could have, because Rule 0.
Not all games have a Rule 0. (It's not even an "unspoken rule" in some editions—some flat out say it.) Rule 0 implies GM Fiat, which means the GM can ignore the rules when they want to. This is bullshit. And it often removes player agency (Point 4).
I don't play with GM Fiat. For example, no dice fudging.
6) Know the module. Even if you wrote it yourself, review it before the session.
No problem with this one.
7) It may sound lazy or crass, but for most RPG systems, starting with a pre-written module, rather than trying to write your own campaign from scratch, really helps out.
Yeah. Rule 0 is bullshit. The GM is not always right. The rule book is always right. Whatever game you play you should play strictly according to the rules. People often try to do things in RPGs that are not covered by the rules of whatever game they are playing, which is fine if it's just flavor that has no game effect. Problems then occur when people try to apply the rules of the game to do things it was not meant to do.
Yeah. Rule 0 is bullshit. The GM is not always right. The rule book is always right.
What if the rulebook says the GM's decisions take precedence, and thus, the book says GM is always right? It's hardly uncommon.
Edit - I can already respond for you to save you the effort, "Then the game is fundamentally broken, and it's therefore a shitty game and you shouldn't play it."
I still find it terrifying that I can predict what you'll say before you say it so often.
Yeah. Rule 0 is bullshit. The GM is not always right. The rule book is always right.
What if the rulebook says the GM's decisions take precedence, and thus, the book says GM is always right? It's hardly uncommon.
Lots of games say this, or say things such as "feel free to modify the rules whatever way you wish." I would strongly suggest either erasing those lines from the book, or not playing those games. All a game has to offer you are its rules. I fit is so lazy as to tell you to make up your own rules, or come to your own judgement, what good is it? You paid money for the game. The game works for you. If you're making it all up yourself, just throw the game out and make up the whole thing yourself.
Lots of games say this, or say things such as "feel free to modify the rules whatever way you wish." I would strongly suggest either erasing those lines from the book, or not playing those games. All a game has to offer you are its rules. I fit is so lazy as to tell you to make up your own rules, or come to your own judgement, what good is it? You paid money for the game. The game works for you. If you're making it all up yourself, just throw the game out and make up the whole thing yourself.
Once again you are taking a thing, pulling it in ridiculuous extrimes and try to pass it as a argument. Usually people who use rule 0 do it when floowing rules would result to no-fun or cause other problems for the group. No role playing game is perfect and every group is different so situations come where breaking the rules is the easiest solution. Even I have breaken or modified rules even thought I'm normally very by the book style GM.
Lots of games say this, or say things such as "feel free to modify the rules whatever way you wish." I would strongly suggest either erasing those lines from the book, or not playing those games. All a game has to offer you are its rules. I fit is so lazy as to tell you to make up your own rules, or come to your own judgement, what good is it? You paid money for the game. The game works for you. If you're making it all up yourself, just throw the game out and make up the whole thing yourself.
Once again you are taking a thing, pulling it in ridiculuous extrimes and try to pass it as a argument. Usually people who use rule 0 do it when floowing rules would result to no-fun or cause other problems for the group. No role playing game is perfect and every group is different so situations come where breaking the rules is the easiest solution. Even I have breaken or modified rules even thought I'm normally very by the book style GM.
If following the rules of a game are creating a no-fun situation, why are you playing that no-fun game?
What is the goal of playing an RPG to you Apreche?
If following the rules of a game are creating a no-fun situation, why are you playing that no-fun game?
Because for every 1 unfun situation there os 9999 fun ones. Like I said no game is perfect. If there were a perfect game I would play only that and nothing else.
The majority of people who GM aren't good enough at it to change the rules for the better. ;^)
You can change a rule, but then you're entered the realm of pseudo-larp wankery. Now, pseudo-larp wankery can be great fun, and there's a time and place for it, but the majority of the time it ends with unsatisfied players undergoing a nerdy equivalent of the Feminine Mystique where everyone says they're having a good time but privately everyone would rather be looking at their phone.
The ONLY measure that can be used to evaluate a role playing game is the rules of said game and their effects. Change the rules, even one, and you're playing a different game.
It's like in music theory. There is a set of rules. Follow those rules, and you'll make something that's guaranteed to sound just fine. Great music is made by breaking the rules in the end, but only when a great person is doing so. Students are taught to never, under any circumstances, ever break a rule of harmony until they truly understand why the rule was there in the first place.
The moment you start breaking rules, you're cheating the players out of their stated experience (unless you tell them you're breaking the rules ahead of time). But more to the point, you're breaking outside of the realm of the rules that guarantee a baseline experience.
Fudging rules puts the entire future and fun of your game in the hands of the GM. If the GM is a transcendent Übermensch, that's great. But, most GMs are terrible, and without rules, their games fall apart.
Example. I try to convince an NPC to do something. Most games have some rules for determining whether or not that succeeds.
Psuedo-larp wankery occurs when those mechanics aren't used and the player just "role plays it out." This manner of conflict resolution heavily rewards real life acting skills, but more importantly, the player's force of personality, eloquence, and extroversion. It's a test of the player convincing the GM to go along with something, not a test of the character.
Group power dynamics start to matter a lot then. I am a forceful personality (if you couldn't tell). I, as a player, got whatever I wanted most of the time when playing D&D where strict rules of, say, the diplomacy skill, weren't used. Charisma of 8? Doesn't matter if you're a good enough actor.
The problem is brought in to much more stark light when there is a dispute among players' characters. The more forceful players tend to always get what they want, and the GM tends to spend more time on them and offer less harsh consequences to them. It's mostly subconscious: the GM won't realize what's happening. But it's there. The less strongwilled players will begin to disengage, or will have much less input on the story.
Ignoring mechanics gives players who can dominate other players or the GMs in the real world control of the game.
That's an issue where you have to fall back on the question of what people are trying to do with the game. Thirty years ago, there was only one game most people knew about, and the interpretations they had of what they were supposed to do with that game varied massively. There wasn't really a uniform play-style, so people tried to use D&D specifically to do things it wasn't going to be good at. And the issue of people focusing very heavily on the role-play aspect to the point of what you're calling "psuedo-larp wankery" (terrible term btw) is just one such issue. There's also a problem where people tried to use the rules to emulate "realistic" simulation role-playing, which it also wasn't built for.
It's fairly important to keep in mind that the successes of those particular "variants" eventually helped create games like Burning Wheel, Dread, and Fiasco.
I would say part of getting to the skill-level where you can successfully bend and break the rules is both mastery of the rules (as you are saying) and trial and error at breaking the rules. They both seem critical to me.
Thirty years ago, there was only one game most people knew about
TODAY there is only one game most people know about.
I would say part of getting to the skill-level where you can successfully bend and break the rules is both mastery of the rules (as you are saying) and trial and error at breaking the rules. They both seem critical to me.
Almost all rule breaking and rule changing I see in good RPGs is a result of people not mastering the rules. Because they have not mastered the rules they encounter situations that the game does account for, but nobody at the table is personally aware of the rule for that situation. Thus, in the name of expedience, a rule is made up or broken. In worse cases an incorrect precedent is set.
Someone who mas mastered the rules of a good RPG will know exactly what rule applies, and apply it. You will almost never find a case where you have to make up or break a rule unless you are going out of your way to make the game into something it is not. In those cases the mistake you made was choosing a game that does not match what you want to play. You should have either chosen a different game to begin with, or made your own game (which I almost guarantee will be a shitty game).
Yes, but the vast majority of players aren't capable of this.
Heavy role playing is great if that's what the group came to the table for. It ruins the game part, however, for people who aren't extroverted or aren't good actors. It removes the game element entirely. It's just role playing. That's a fine thing in an of itself, but not when the players pretend it's something else!
A role playing GAME means that conflicts between players (not characters) are resolved via mechanics. There are many different kinds of role playing, and they're all awesome in different situations.
This becomes "pseudo-larp wankery" specifically when the GAME is being played, and is part of the role playing, but is simultaneously cast aside whenever it suits the game master. The table becomes a quasi-game, a liminality between mechanical and arbitrary mediation of conflict. This is more dissatisfying than a purer form of EITHER.
Every time we've run our "Beyond Dungeons & Dragons" at a convention, we've found the same story. The majority of players of tabletop role playing games appear to be quietly dissatisfied with their games, but keep playing regardless. Everyone is bored, but everyone keeps playing.
They know they're dissatisfied, but they can't quite articulate why! Awesome things happen in their games, and they remember them fondly, but the act of playing itself is deeply dissatisfying.
This dissatisfaction is almost entirely due to the disconnect between mechanical and arbitrary aspects of their games. It's masked by people like me in these games, who are able, when unconstrained by mechanics, to exert surprising power over the narrative and direct the story to my own liking. People like me, in games like that, are foisting their personal wankery onto the other players. We're hosting larps and telling everyone else what to say.
Someone who mas mastered the rules of a good RPG will know exactly what rule applies, and apply it. You will almost never find a case where you have to make up or break a rule unless you are going out of your way to make the game into something it is not. In those cases the mistake you made was choosing a game that does not match what you want to play. You should have either chosen a different game to begin with, or made your own game (which I almost guarantee will be a shitty game).
There does not exist an infinite number of pre-constructed games to cover every single group at every single time. The problem with your philosophy here is that one variant will improve group x but be a detriment to group y. Figuring that out is difficult, you can't simplify that problem out of the way. That's why GMing is in general is an artform.
Look at playing RPGs from a meta perspective. You have limited funds, limited knowledge of all games that exist, and your goal is to maximize the entertainment value for a specific group of people with various goals and interests simultaneously. Anything you do that makes the game more entertaining is a positive, anything that you do that is a detriment is negative. But keep in mind, that's for this specific group on this specific day. Each group and each day is slightly different.
Every time we've run our "Beyond Dungeons & Dragons" at a convention, we've found the same story. The majority of players of tabletop role playing games appear to be quietly dissatisfied with their games, but keep playing regardless. Everyone is bored, but everyone keeps playing.
They know they're dissatisfied, but they can't quite articulate why! Awesome things happen in their games, and they remember them fondly, but the act of playing itself is deeply dissatisfying.
This dissatisfaction is almost entirely due to the disconnect between mechanical and arbitrary aspects of their games. It's masked by people like me in these games, who are able, when unconstrained by mechanics, to exert surprising power over the narrative and direct the story to my own liking. People like me, in games like that, are foisting their personal wankery onto the other players. We're hosting larps and telling everyone else what to say.
Your heavy focus on "Psuedo larp wankery" as the primary evil seems misplaced to me. Honestly I havn't encountered much "Psuedo larp wankery" style gaming since the 90s. The topic of the last ten years has been much more focused on the RPG as a tactical combat game with a few sentences of story-boarding to connect them. I would say that modern D&D has focused very heavily on exactly what you're saying you want as far as following the rules as written and not straying... and yet those same people are still only half-heartedly enjoying their games.
My argument would be that the problem isn't solved at-all with your methods. It's solved by fixing the basic human interaction involved and opening up communications lines. Why are we here? What do we want to do? How do we go about doing that? When people are not really having fun, they need to be able to realize this, communicate as much, and hopefully be introspective enough to come up with ideas about how to fix that.
But keep in mind, that's for this specific group on this specific day. Each group and each day is slightly different.
I'd argue they're not. All groups are harmed by repeated movement between mechanical mediation and arbitrary mediation, as I expressed in depth above. And that is exactly what the vast majority of "rule fixers" end up doing.
GMing is not an art form. Storytelling is an art form. Creating games is an art form. A GM is just a person in a game who must follow the instructions given by the game. Is being a referee an art form? No.
Limited funds and knowledge do not exist because the Internet exists. It is true that anything you do that increases the entertainment is positive, and other things are a negative. What I'm saying is that YOU, being almost every GM and player on Earth, do not know what will increase entertainment. Game designers know better than you. Do what they say will create the most fun. You think you know what will be more fun, but you are wrong.
Remember how Tribes 2 died because they did what the players asked? Remember how Counter-Strike ignored player requests to remove AWP and it is the #1 multiplayer game in the world? When you modify your game you are killing it like Tribes 2. You think you are fixing your car, but you are not a mechanic and you fucked it up.
If you look around at the world of RPGs what do you see? Anywhere you go in the RPG community there are the same questions over and over again. I have X problem in my game, what do I do about it? How do I find players? How do I find a GM? How do I be a better GM? The people are asking these questions because their games suck balls. If they were happily role playing, they wouldn't be asking for the same advice for years and years. Where on earth are the games that are awesome and don't have people asking for this kind of advice? The games are on the tables where everyone knows the rules and follows them to the letter.
Your heavy focus on "Psuedo larp wankery" as the primary evil seems misplaced to me. Honestly I havn't encountered much "Psuedo larp wankery" style gaming since the 90s.
That's how the majority of games go. Rules fall aside (even simple ones) to overbearing players. It's the rule, not the exception.
Deep larping and super heavy role playing games, even ones with weak mechanical mediation, are fine! It's only wankery when it hits that twilight zone between the two: that's fertile ground for wankers.
If you are using your own social skills to "win" in an rpg, you are being a dick. Referring to rule Ultimate, one should stop that.
Also, instead of "psudo-larp wankery" please use term "freeform" which is the commonly used term for "ruleless" gaming. Also as a larper I see noting bad in "larp-wankery".
Once again, roleplaying is full of tools like Rule 0, systems, freeforming and whatnot and none of them are absolutely right for every situation, group and game. They are tools and as any tools one should pick and choose right tools for them.
Comments
But that point, they're just not a very good RPer in that sense. There can be certain situations where this doesn't count (Despite the Diplomacy check, it goes completely against that character's entire moral fiber to do that they are being asked to do), but generally if the character has no meta-knowledge that would stop them from listening to the person, and they aren't a super jerk who usually doesn't do what people say, the player should go along with the check. If any of the above things are true, the player shouldn't have been initiated into the Diplomacy check or whatever. It should be a situation where they can't be persuaded into doing something due to their backstory, alignment, or temperament.
As a DM, I'm extremely uncomfortable taking direct control over a PC, except in cases of charm/mind control by an NPC.
(cue Will's head exploding due to him thinking I'm a BW fanboy in 3... 2...)
Actually I don't think Burning Wheel would be a solution to this particular problem. Persuasion in it is pretty much game winning skill of mind control.
Like when I listened to the Penny Arcade D&D sessions I would basically be the equivalent of Gabe with Jim Darkmagic but the DM in those situations seemed to expect this behavior and just kinda roll with the punches.
I dunno, I've only played D&D a handful of times though.
My replies here are for RPGs in general, not necessary D&D (since the post mentioned a DM). Unless it's a matter of life and death, have the GM make a decision and look up the answer after the game and go over it next session. If everyone's learning the system, though, stopping to figure it out can make a lot of sense. If they know the answers (e.g., have read the book more thoroughly than you), then I don't see a problem with this. Some systems are quite specific on when to roll. Personally, though, I play with systems that have this rule. I agree, but there's probably a better way to state it. More generally, reward behaviors you want to see in play. Hopefully, if you've picked the right system for your game, the system's specified rewards and outcomes match the feel of the game everyone wants to play. Not all games have a Rule 0. (It's not even an "unspoken rule" in some editions—some flat out say it.) Rule 0 implies GM Fiat, which means the GM can ignore the rules when they want to. This is bullshit. And it often removes player agency (Point 4).
I don't play with GM Fiat. For example, no dice fudging. No problem with this one. Agreed. This can be very system specific.
Edit - I can already respond for you to save you the effort, "Then the game is fundamentally broken, and it's therefore a shitty game and you shouldn't play it."
I still find it terrifying that I can predict what you'll say before you say it so often.
You can change a rule, but then you're entered the realm of pseudo-larp wankery. Now, pseudo-larp wankery can be great fun, and there's a time and place for it, but the majority of the time it ends with unsatisfied players undergoing a nerdy equivalent of the Feminine Mystique where everyone says they're having a good time but privately everyone would rather be looking at their phone.
The ONLY measure that can be used to evaluate a role playing game is the rules of said game and their effects. Change the rules, even one, and you're playing a different game.
It's like in music theory. There is a set of rules. Follow those rules, and you'll make something that's guaranteed to sound just fine. Great music is made by breaking the rules in the end, but only when a great person is doing so. Students are taught to never, under any circumstances, ever break a rule of harmony until they truly understand why the rule was there in the first place.
The moment you start breaking rules, you're cheating the players out of their stated experience (unless you tell them you're breaking the rules ahead of time). But more to the point, you're breaking outside of the realm of the rules that guarantee a baseline experience.
Fudging rules puts the entire future and fun of your game in the hands of the GM. If the GM is a transcendent Übermensch, that's great. But, most GMs are terrible, and without rules, their games fall apart.
Psuedo-larp wankery occurs when those mechanics aren't used and the player just "role plays it out." This manner of conflict resolution heavily rewards real life acting skills, but more importantly, the player's force of personality, eloquence, and extroversion. It's a test of the player convincing the GM to go along with something, not a test of the character.
Group power dynamics start to matter a lot then. I am a forceful personality (if you couldn't tell). I, as a player, got whatever I wanted most of the time when playing D&D where strict rules of, say, the diplomacy skill, weren't used. Charisma of 8? Doesn't matter if you're a good enough actor.
The problem is brought in to much more stark light when there is a dispute among players' characters. The more forceful players tend to always get what they want, and the GM tends to spend more time on them and offer less harsh consequences to them. It's mostly subconscious: the GM won't realize what's happening. But it's there. The less strongwilled players will begin to disengage, or will have much less input on the story.
Ignoring mechanics gives players who can dominate other players or the GMs in the real world control of the game.
It's fairly important to keep in mind that the successes of those particular "variants" eventually helped create games like Burning Wheel, Dread, and Fiasco.
I would say part of getting to the skill-level where you can successfully bend and break the rules is both mastery of the rules (as you are saying) and trial and error at breaking the rules. They both seem critical to me.
Someone who mas mastered the rules of a good RPG will know exactly what rule applies, and apply it. You will almost never find a case where you have to make up or break a rule unless you are going out of your way to make the game into something it is not. In those cases the mistake you made was choosing a game that does not match what you want to play. You should have either chosen a different game to begin with, or made your own game (which I almost guarantee will be a shitty game).
Heavy role playing is great if that's what the group came to the table for. It ruins the game part, however, for people who aren't extroverted or aren't good actors. It removes the game element entirely. It's just role playing. That's a fine thing in an of itself, but not when the players pretend it's something else!
A role playing GAME means that conflicts between players (not characters) are resolved via mechanics. There are many different kinds of role playing, and they're all awesome in different situations.
This becomes "pseudo-larp wankery" specifically when the GAME is being played, and is part of the role playing, but is simultaneously cast aside whenever it suits the game master. The table becomes a quasi-game, a liminality between mechanical and arbitrary mediation of conflict. This is more dissatisfying than a purer form of EITHER.
Every time we've run our "Beyond Dungeons & Dragons" at a convention, we've found the same story. The majority of players of tabletop role playing games appear to be quietly dissatisfied with their games, but keep playing regardless. Everyone is bored, but everyone keeps playing.
They know they're dissatisfied, but they can't quite articulate why! Awesome things happen in their games, and they remember them fondly, but the act of playing itself is deeply dissatisfying.
This dissatisfaction is almost entirely due to the disconnect between mechanical and arbitrary aspects of their games. It's masked by people like me in these games, who are able, when unconstrained by mechanics, to exert surprising power over the narrative and direct the story to my own liking. People like me, in games like that, are foisting their personal wankery onto the other players. We're hosting larps and telling everyone else what to say.
Look at playing RPGs from a meta perspective. You have limited funds, limited knowledge of all games that exist, and your goal is to maximize the entertainment value for a specific group of people with various goals and interests simultaneously. Anything you do that makes the game more entertaining is a positive, anything that you do that is a detriment is negative. But keep in mind, that's for this specific group on this specific day. Each group and each day is slightly different.
My argument would be that the problem isn't solved at-all with your methods. It's solved by fixing the basic human interaction involved and opening up communications lines. Why are we here? What do we want to do? How do we go about doing that? When people are not really having fun, they need to be able to realize this, communicate as much, and hopefully be introspective enough to come up with ideas about how to fix that.
Limited funds and knowledge do not exist because the Internet exists. It is true that anything you do that increases the entertainment is positive, and other things are a negative. What I'm saying is that YOU, being almost every GM and player on Earth, do not know what will increase entertainment. Game designers know better than you. Do what they say will create the most fun. You think you know what will be more fun, but you are wrong.
Remember how Tribes 2 died because they did what the players asked? Remember how Counter-Strike ignored player requests to remove AWP and it is the #1 multiplayer game in the world? When you modify your game you are killing it like Tribes 2. You think you are fixing your car, but you are not a mechanic and you fucked it up.
If you look around at the world of RPGs what do you see? Anywhere you go in the RPG community there are the same questions over and over again. I have X problem in my game, what do I do about it? How do I find players? How do I find a GM? How do I be a better GM? The people are asking these questions because their games suck balls. If they were happily role playing, they wouldn't be asking for the same advice for years and years. Where on earth are the games that are awesome and don't have people asking for this kind of advice? The games are on the tables where everyone knows the rules and follows them to the letter.
Deep larping and super heavy role playing games, even ones with weak mechanical mediation, are fine! It's only wankery when it hits that twilight zone between the two: that's fertile ground for wankers.
Also, instead of "psudo-larp wankery" please use term "freeform" which is the commonly used term for "ruleless" gaming. Also as a larper I see noting bad in "larp-wankery".
Once again, roleplaying is full of tools like Rule 0, systems, freeforming and whatnot and none of them are absolutely right for every situation, group and game. They are tools and as any tools one should pick and choose right tools for them.