Search results

Mod Note: We wouldn't allow you to make fun of peple of a given race based on stereotypes. One wonders by what logic you figured that doing it to autistic folks would be okay. Poking fun at the behaviors of folks that they don't really choose is pretty lame. Don't do it, please.

Fine, I'll try to clarify. Do you know much about statistics? If you do, then you should realize that it is not enough to just be repeated, and over several groups. Getting what we'd call a "representative sample" takes more than that. And when you, personally, are always involved, that...

So, appeal to authority now? Really? That's your play? I'm not going to engage with that.

I have my opinions, of course. But, I'm just this guy. Who gives a fig what I think?

I don't know if I'd use that precise language, but I come from a background in education. I pretty solidly agree with the sentiment.

Then don't worry about it. It isn't worth struggling over.

Individual behavior is anecdote, not data. Individual actual play is not a meaningful testbed or metric. Only in aggregate over many groups do we much of anything reliable. Like: lots of GMs hide the setting logic from players - some, for example, ascribe to a "skilled play" approach in...

My objection has never been about the existence of a particular result. I am not saying anything in particular is badwrongfun. Generally, if everyone is aware, sure, that's fine. But... (there's always a but)... Specific situation beats general, and real people are more important than...

If your folks are dispassionate about your games, then maybe it doesn't apply to you? Otherwise, I find the romantic relationship is kind of apt, as it highlights that there are responsibilities and expectations between you, and the people involved care pretty deeply about how it goes..

You seem to be trying to say the logic exists outside the creation. It does not. The logic is part of the creation. How the thing behaves is part of the thing that you create, not separate. Yeah, but since you created the NPC with that particular desire, you cannot divorce yourself from how...

As GM, you have editorial control, and you are in charge of implementation. Once you pick it up and use it, it is yours. Plus, unless you are going to claim that pretty much everyone who uses those settings would, if given the same situation in the setting, come to the same setting-logic...

Because, what this project needed, more than anything else, was for Bledsaw to drop trou in front of the entire market.

Yep. You got it.

I think the metaphor isn't tortured. It may just be uncomfortably clear. Valentine's Day is the moment in which the results we produce are particularly relevant to the recipient of those results. On Valentine's Day, getting a bag of poo from your SO is particularly relevant, and is...

So, what are we talking about here - what you, robertsconley, do, or what is done broadly in various approaches to play. Because your personal behavior doesn't speak to anyone but you - and your behavior then cannot be used as support for an approach to play, in general. And, again, the...

Perhaps. Note that I wasn't the one to first use that word. On the internet, there's a tendency to describe the other guy with uncomplimentary terms, and describe our own actions with complimentary terms. One way to combat that is to use the same terms for everyone - and if that makes...

Well, part of the thing there is that the results of tables, specifically, are obvious, but "table" is really just an example of mechanics, and the results of mechanics, in general, are sometimes hard to predict. And I can be a bit more forgiving if a more opaque mechanic has unexpected...

So, what I find an issue is the implication that the bag of poo has a source other than the GM's desire for occasional poo. I don't actually find it a problem if a bag of poo shows up due to a pre-written, externalized chart/mechanic, an internal GM runtime logic that wasn't externalized, or...

Sure. The problem is that some folks here use language that at least seems to try to shift the responsibility, and/or make it sound more legitimate - the game doesn't run by their whim, but by the "world's internal logic". The GM, however, is entirely responsible for that "internal logic". It...

Okay, then I see no disagreement. The GM can, within some limits, state some things exist in the fiction. If the GM doesn't state so explicitly, the player has a way to insert things as well: In one game style, the player asks the GM if one is present. In another game type, the player asks the...