Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hillsy7" data-source="post: 7191722" data-attributes="member: 6689191">I think there's a lot of overlapping intentions at play when a thread gets this long and people are crossing opinion, rebuttal and validation.1) I don't think anyone is saying anyone shouldn't houserule this variant if you want it. The conflict arises because the explanations people have for their answers is often worded poorly, meaning "I wouldn't do this myself because" becomes "This doesn't work because" - it's not anyone's fault really, it's just the vagaries of language. So often people end up driving their point home to prove their view is equally valid, not to say the opposing or alternative point is incorrect.2) The OP would do well to acknowledge that while he may not agree with a softer alternative solution, that it is perfectly acceptable to play the game that way, and not try and belittle that opinion in order to justify his own preference for more rigid structures. His preference is justification enough. A simple note saying "Story based solutions don't appeal to me, so I'm looking for purely mechanical fixes only" would avoid a lot of people feeling their perfectly valid solutions are being dismissed and arguing back just to be taken seriously.3) Just as an aside "I would hate to TPK my players just because they didn't complete Assingment X in 4 days, even if I told them so beforehand" isn't what people have been saying. A story based solution would be "If you don't complete this in [x] days, something consequential happens." If the players try and play the GM, take the piss, and just assume the GM will adjust the reality of the Game to suit them...well...that's what consequences are for.4) There's lots of different ways to play the game that have differing feels to them - and a question that says "I think this is a problem, here is my solution, what are your thoughts" are going to garner a full gamut of responses from "Me too! Perfect solution!", through "I would do it this way", right up to "It's not even a problem". It's up to the OP to assess those responses, reaffirm his position where he has been misrepresented, and generally take stuff in. He is perfectly entitled to take or leave anything he doesn't 'feel' would work for his game. That's totally fine - it's his decision after all. He's also perfectly entitled to call an a$$hat out if they are being Dicks. What isn't fair is to say to other people "Your opinion is incorrect".I've done a fair amount of Writing as a hobby, and one of the golden rules when workshopping your novel with other people is to argue back. You can clarify if there are clear mistakes, or ask the opinion giver for clarification why they think something, but otherwise you SHTU and listen to the feedback. You then parse it all and discard that which you don't agree with, or seems like an outlier. What's left is stuff you can use however you wish.5) People's GM-ing preference is a very personal thing, and really shouldn't be justified. It also shouldn't be feared as a reason to say "I understand what you're saying, but it's not what I want to do". In fact it is, after all, the ultimate deciding factor.</blockquote>

Verification