Jump to content

Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement


Warp9

Recommended Posts

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Because you aren't talking about the same thing I am, and I was addressing Archermoo, not you. Lose the chip. Seriously. If you find what I'm talking about offensive, stop reading this. But getting worked up and not paying attention to what I'm saying is doing nothing useful for the discussion.

 

What I asked Archermoo was if he had seen a game that had active, formalized power sharing about rules issues. His response did not tell me he had, so it was not a response to the actual question I asked. I'm not talking about creative sharing, and I'm not talking about the sort of sort of "I change rules when someone makes a good argument to me" procedure that's the mitigating factor in the normal hobby. He made a comment about the consequences of what I'm suggesting, and I asked him if he had actually seen it. His response was, as I said, nonresponsive; if he's saying "no, I haven't, but this is what I think would happen" that's fine, but at that point he's just suggesting a hypothetical and it has different weight in the argument than an argument from experience, and the appropriate responses are different.

 

See the problem is that it is hard to tell when you are trying to address someone specifically and when you are making general statements. When I objected to you telling me why I "really" objected to the Ref not being in charge, you backpedaled and claimed you were speaking in general. Even though it was fairly obvious to me and I'm guessing most others that you were addressing me specifically. Now when someone else responds to one of your posts you dismiss them by saying "I was talking to someone else".

 

I don't really see a whole lot of point in discussing this further with you. You've already made your decisions, not only as to what you prefer, but what everyone else prefers as well. They may not realize it yet, but you know what is best for them, and if only they would listen to you they would realize it. And any time someone points out to you that that isn't the case you dismiss them and their experience. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but you aren't the only person that has thought about these kind of issues. And you aren't the only one who has experimented around with them. And there are quite a few of us who have done both, and who disagree with you as to what works best. You seem unwilling to accept that. Fine, that's your choice. The difference between us is that you at least seem to be trying to tell us that our opinions are wrong, and that we would really be better off playing your way. On the other hand we are just saying that no, while you may prefer it, we don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 357
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Were the two games you refer to the former' date=' the latter, or a combination of the two?[/quote']

 

Mechanical sharing. The players were involved in decision making on what was okay at the table and what wasn't. Group consensus of what kind of rulings were made when the rules didn't cover something (the kind of thing that the GM in trad play typically does).

 

I've never seen a game crawl to a stop faster than those circumstances. Everyone debated and argued about how things should go. Or the majority overruled common sense.

 

From my experiences, much better to have one voice make those kind of decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

See the problem is that it is hard to tell when you are trying to address someone specifically and when you are making general statements. When I objected to you telling me why I "really" objected to the Ref not being in charge, you backpedaled and claimed you were speaking in general. Even though it was fairly obvious to me and I'm guessing most others that you were addressing me specifically. Now when someone else responds to one of your posts you dismiss them by saying "I was talking to someone else".

 

 

I'm really sorry if I expect people to understand the difference between the you in a direct question and the "you" in a topical point, but I do.

 

 

I don't really see a whole lot of point in discussing this further with you. You've already made your decisions, not only as to what you prefer, but what everyone else prefers as well. They may not realize it yet, but you know

 

 

No, I haven't. I've made a decision about what would be good for the hobby as a whole. That in no way says I think it'll work for every single person and group in the hobby, because nothing does. Gamers are far too individualistic than that. But if you'd like to put words in my mouth, by all means.

 

 

dismiss them and their experience. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but you aren't the only person that has thought about these kind of issues. And you aren't the only one who has experimented around with them. And there are quite a few of us who have done both, and who disagree with you as to what works best. You seem unwilling to accept that. Fine, that's your choice. The difference between us is that you at least seem to be trying to tell us that our opinions are wrong, and that we would really be better off playing your way. On the other hand we are just saying that no, while you may prefer it, we don't.

 

I'm not telling you how I think you'll be better off. I'm saying the majority of the hobby would be better off. If the difference is neither clear nor important to you, then that's as it is.

 

Now, if you disagree with that, and want me to say I don't think you're wrong--that's not going to happen. That's what an opinion is about. I'm not going to tell you you don't have reasons to think as you do, but if you care to talk about it, then I'm going to tell you why I don't think your opinion is correct. If you disagree with those comments, I'm going to pursue them. That's what a disagreement is, and what an argument is.

 

The bottom line is that its entirely possible to both acknowledge that another person has reasons for their views and to think they're wrong. I'm doing both here, and if that upsets people, well, bluntly, that's their problem. If they want to continue with the discussion, fine, but if not getting offended about it is, in essence, getting offended because I have an opinion.

 

I have in no way intended, nor, to my view, acted to insult you, Ghost-angel or anyone else in this thread; the most I've done is suggest he's getting worked up and you didn't actually answer a question. I hardly see either of those as insulting, nor as suggesting I think you're wrong about a general point as calling anyone a liar or being unwilling to listen to argument. As an example, I'm quite interested to hear if Lord Mhoram has had an experience like what I'm talking about.

 

But the bottom line is I've been thinking about this and talking to people a long time, so its going to need something more than "its worked for us and people we know" to move me. If that makes me intransigent, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

You've already made your decisions, not only as to what you prefer, but what everyone else prefers as well. They may not realize it yet, but you know what is best for them, and if only they would listen to you they would realize it. And any time someone points out to you that that isn't the case you dismiss them and their experience. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but you aren't the only person that has thought about these kind of issues. And you aren't the only one who has experimented around with them. And there are quite a few of us who have done both, and who disagree with you as to what works best. You seem unwilling to accept that. Fine, that's your choice. The difference between us is that you at least seem to be trying to tell us that our opinions are wrong, and that we would really be better off playing your way. On the other hand we are just saying that no, while you may prefer it, we don't.

 

:)

 

I agree. As I posted earlier (talking in general terms rather than specific).

 

The problem I see (in general) with those that embrace non traditional gameplay (mostly from the above mentioned conversations on RPGnet) is that they found it wanting (or problematic due to bad GMs ect), and so they embrace something non traditional that works for them. However they quite often fail to see that the trad way is good for others, and label them as people not thinking outside the box, or on a lower level of gaming (just like the White Wolfers tend to look down on things that aren't angsty).

 

The pulled themselves out of the morass of traditional play (as they see it) and want to bring everyone else out of it, not realizing that to others it is not a morass. :)

 

Some of the "indie arrogence" comes into it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trusting Systems vs trusting GM Judgement

 

Mechanical sharing. The players were involved in decision making on what was okay at the table and what wasn't. Group consensus of what kind of rulings were made when the rules didn't cover something (the kind of thing that the GM in trad play typically does).

 

I've never seen a game crawl to a stop faster than those circumstances. Everyone debated and argued about how things should go. Or the majority overruled common sense.

 

From my experiences, much better to have one voice make those kind of decisions.

 

Interesting. How much of a premium do you place on speed of play (I'm trying to get a handle on how much slowing what you're talking about is the case).

 

As to the majority overruling common sense--if that was the case, doesn't that suggest that the group wasn't on the same page in the first place? I can't see that being a problem unless part of the group clearly wanted something radically different than what the GM did. Or was it a big picture problem? (What I mean by the latter is that one thing (that I think the top down meme has contributed to) is that players are often incapable or unwilling to look at things in a big-picture kind of way.)

 

Basically, I'm wondering if both these don't come from conflicts in expectations, so I'm curious about your assessment of the groups involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...