Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Archive-threads
better gaming through chemistry
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 2696160" data-attributes="member: 13892"><p>Actually, quite the inverse is true - many games, by implelmenting numerous mechanical checks and balances, actually give the <em>players</em> more power by defining the structure within which a GM can work. There are games are games that don't do this, but everybody (including the players) knows this when they sit down to play one of those games, and trust the GM not to abuse this power. If somebody agrees to play with a rule set that gives the GM more power, they shouldn't bitch about it unless... </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If the GM abuses this power, then sure - players <em>should</em> be upset. They should also <em>tell the GM that they're upset</em> - something that, in my ten years of gaming, I've rarely seen upset players do. Instead, such players seem to keep their mouth shut and so the GM, unaware that a problem exists, doesn't change anything and a miserable game continues to be miserable, while unhappiness festers. </p><p></p><p>In this regard players usually have as much responsibility for a crappy game as the GM does, if not more, as they had the chance to point out a problem that the GM might not be aware of and <em>chose not to do so</em>. When <em>this</em> happens, players have <em>no</em> right to complain - after all, they're contributing to the problem by not addressing it (and, thus, allowing it to continue) just as much the GM did by initially creating it. </p><p></p><p>This comes back to cooperation between <em>all</em> players. A social contract takes care of a lot of this before play ever begins by addressing specific tenets of play according to the wishes of all players involved in the game, and I've found that most players welcome such structure. The <em>only</em> players that I've seen vehemently oppose social contracts and other cooperative efforts in games are those socially short-changed players who would benfit from a book such as that proposed by Jim.</p><p></p><p>[Edit: If you need contributors, Jim, I'd gladly write a piece about social contracts and playing to expectations.]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jdrakeh, post: 2696160, member: 13892"] Actually, quite the inverse is true - many games, by implelmenting numerous mechanical checks and balances, actually give the [i]players[/i] more power by defining the structure within which a GM can work. There are games are games that don't do this, but everybody (including the players) knows this when they sit down to play one of those games, and trust the GM not to abuse this power. If somebody agrees to play with a rule set that gives the GM more power, they shouldn't bitch about it unless... If the GM abuses this power, then sure - players [i]should[/i] be upset. They should also [i]tell the GM that they're upset[/i] - something that, in my ten years of gaming, I've rarely seen upset players do. Instead, such players seem to keep their mouth shut and so the GM, unaware that a problem exists, doesn't change anything and a miserable game continues to be miserable, while unhappiness festers. In this regard players usually have as much responsibility for a crappy game as the GM does, if not more, as they had the chance to point out a problem that the GM might not be aware of and [i]chose not to do so[/i]. When [i]this[/i] happens, players have [i]no[/i] right to complain - after all, they're contributing to the problem by not addressing it (and, thus, allowing it to continue) just as much the GM did by initially creating it. This comes back to cooperation between [i]all[/i] players. A social contract takes care of a lot of this before play ever begins by addressing specific tenets of play according to the wishes of all players involved in the game, and I've found that most players welcome such structure. The [i]only[/i] players that I've seen vehemently oppose social contracts and other cooperative efforts in games are those socially short-changed players who would benfit from a book such as that proposed by Jim. [Edit: If you need contributors, Jim, I'd gladly write a piece about social contracts and playing to expectations.] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Archive-threads
better gaming through chemistry
Top