Do you "save" the PCs?

[Fifth Element]

There is no difference.

There is no difference between fantasy baseball and RPGs. There is a difference between real baseball and RPGs.

The purpose of RPGs is not to roll dice and note things on your character sheet. An RPG can be played entirely without dice, or pencils, or character sheets, or minis, or anything but your imagination.

So in the sense that a baseball and your imagination are the same, the game of baseball is the same as an RPG.

 

[Fifth Element]

These folks might have different reasons for playing than we do (other than generally to have fun of course)

Quite so.

 

[Fifth Element]

That your players continually choose you indicates that you are the best choice among the choices they have. That is a good accomplishment. Probably the best any of us can hope to attain.

I don't dispute that this is possible. I submit, however, that you have no reason to believe that it is the case, other than your own predisposition toward believing it is the case.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think we have enough information to make that call.

Agreed. Indeed, that was part of the point I was trying to make.

The other is that, because DM X is preferred over Y and Z, it does not follow that it is for quality A. Especially as we do not know if, or to what degree, DMs Y and Z possess quality A.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't dispute that this is possible. I submit, however, that you have no reason to believe that it is the case, other than your own predisposition toward believing it is the case.

I submit that it is the most rational inference from the data at hand.

 

[Umbran]

I disagree.

He's said, in no uncertain terms, that he feels he knows better than you (for whoever "you" are) what your gamers would like - they'd like their game better his way. He doesn't have to meet them, doesn't have to play at the table. If you disagree with him, you may not realize it but you are simply mistaken. So, yes, he is saying that anyone who does not agree with him is, in fact, wrong. Classic OneTrueWayism, I'm sorry to say.

Saying the other guy is "bad" is not part of the heart of OneTrueWayism, but insofar as they aren't giving as good a game as they might, those GMs aren't themselves as good at they could be, so they are just that little bit bad.

Well, thank you for at least suggesting that I am polite.

What I said was that your point was politely phrased. If you need me to go into that more, please take it to PM.

If there is a purpose to your post, apart from attempting to be insulting, I would like to hear it. As I argue GMs shouldn't fudge, or cops shouldn't commit crimes, I would also argue that mods shouldn't attempt to insult other posters.

The point is to make it 100% clear to the readers, so they may make well-informed decisions as to how to proceed.

If the only alternative to "OneTrueWayism" is "Absolute Relativism", then I guess you've got me.

You see, it goes like this - in OneTrueWayism, you believe you know what's best for all gamers (or, for as large a chuck of them as makes no odds). In Absolute Relativism, you believe you know that there is no one best thing for all gamers.

There is another choice. A humble one, where you believe that you know what's worked for your own people, but that your personal observations are not likely superior to those of others.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Classic OneTrueWayism, I'm sorry to say.

It seems fairly clear that you get a nickel for every time you say OneTrueWayism (what, no ®?), so why be sorry?

 

[Umbran]

It seems fairly clear that you get a nickel for every time you say OneTrueWayism (what, no ®?), so why be sorry?

I wish. No, I'm not saying it for fun or my own benefit. I use the word to stay specific, so there is little chance of confusion or drift with the rest of the thread. I am sorry because I wish I never had call to say it ever.

 

[Raven Crowking]

He's said, in no uncertain terms, that he feels he knows better than you (for whoever "you" are) what your gamers would like - they'd like their game better his way.

Nope.

Doesn't apply to any specific "you"; just to general odds.

He's repeatedly said that any specific "you" might defy the odds, and even said that his understanding of the odds may be wrong, as that understanding is based solely upon his experience.

However, given the proposition that person X defies those general odds, he is inclined to skepticism.

That is very different than being inclined to outright denial. Well, in my universe, anyway.

What about that is so hard for you to understand?


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

I submit that it is the most rational inference from the data at hand.

Rejected. You're not basing it on data. You're basing it on preconceived biases. You see it this way, so you interpret things to conform with that preconception.

The most rational inference to the data "I fudge for my group, and my group enjoys playing with me" is that my players enjoy (or at least, don't mind) fudging, because you have no other information about them.

The inference that they only continue to play with me because they can't find anything better, or that they really hate fudging but are too cowed to my DM power to say anything, is not the most rational inference. It is a massive stretch, a conclusion reached to match your own bias against fudging.