Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8146257"><p>I totally get the preference of wanting the logic behind a ruling or mechanic to be based on drama or narrative. That is fair. What I don't get here is why you think it is impossible for the GM to determine what happens based on anything else. I mean just because it is not possible for a human GM to simulate reality, that doesn't mean they can't decide things based on what they think would happen (using common sense, world knowledge etc). The question is whether the players find the rulings believable for the purposes of a game. But none of that means the GM is employing narrative or dramatic logic. This is evident by the very problem you identify. Your whole issue is the GM on his or her own is not capable of producing something dramatically satisfying. If the GM were only capable of emptying dramatic logic then surely more campaigns would be dramatically successful. It is the very fact that they are employing other rationales in their rulings that things don't pan out dramatically all the time (and to some players can appear pointless or boring). I am not trying to be pugnacious with you here, but it is really hard for me to take your claims of serious analysis seriously, when the imply that if the GM isn't employing dramatic logic they must be coming form some truly nefarious place (i.e. seducing a player or advancing a political agenda). I don't see how we can have a real conversation about playstyle differences if you can't even acknowledge the existence of things other people experience in games, and the only way you can acknowledge them is by casting them in an extremely dubious light.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification