Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7490494" data-attributes="member: 6919838">yes... there are bad gms and gms who make mistakes and Gms who think &quot;gotcha&quot; vs players are the way to go... thats why there are feet, discussions at session zero, and hopefully dialogs between player and Gm about the character and play before the game.Obviously i think many folks would agree (today) that a paladin should have a good idea that &quot;this is right by my boos and this is not&quot; and get clues along the way. But again i say - if your Gm is determined to run &quot;gotchas&quot; your &quot;fluff is mine dictate&quot; wont stop the vast majority of what he can do to &quot;gotcha&quot;.Let me suggest this tho...Is it perhaps worse for the player - Gm dynamic for the two to adopt a less collaborative viewpoint such as &quot;fluff is mine&quot; as opposed to spending a bit of time going over the &quot;fluff&quot; especially the &quot;fluff&quot; that matters? See, when me and my players get together to work out characters' details we come at it from the perspective that the &quot;fluff&quot; matters to all of us - player and GM&quot; and that it is as much an important element to the campaign as the mechanics to each of us. Without the presence of a &quot;GM KEEP OUT&quot; sign on the character &quot;fluff&quot; and with full understanding that it will matter to the campaign - we are driven to work out these kinds of details including a broad and strong understanding of what obligations are incurred and of how things have been &quot;seen to work&quot; in the past by the character (assuming the pact or oath had been in place for a while.) Some examples of &quot;skirted the edge&quot; and &quot;results were&quot; are created - mostly by the player but suggestions by the GM. By not putting the big flashing neon &quot;GM KEEP OUT&quot; on the fluff, we are driven to work out the necessary details and examples and &quot;how this relationship works&quot; well before it comes up in game. To some that might make us irrational... but for us... it works.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7490494, member: 6919838"] yes... there are bad gms and gms who make mistakes and Gms who think "gotcha" vs players are the way to go... thats why there are feet, discussions at session zero, and hopefully dialogs between player and Gm about the character and play before the game. Obviously i think many folks would agree (today) that a paladin should have a good idea that "this is right by my boos and this is not" and get clues along the way. But again i say - if your Gm is determined to run "gotchas" your "fluff is mine dictate" wont stop the vast majority of what he can do to "gotcha". Let me suggest this tho... Is it perhaps worse for the player - Gm dynamic for the two to adopt a less collaborative viewpoint such as "fluff is mine" as opposed to spending a bit of time going over the "fluff" especially the "fluff" that matters? See, when me and my players get together to work out characters' details we come at it from the perspective that the "fluff" matters to all of us - player and GM" and that it is as much an important element to the campaign as the mechanics to each of us. Without the presence of a "GM KEEP OUT" sign on the character "fluff" and with full understanding that it will matter to the campaign - we are driven to work out these kinds of details including a broad and strong understanding of what obligations are incurred and of how things have been "seen to work" in the past by the character (assuming the pact or oath had been in place for a while.) Some examples of "skirted the edge" and "results were" are created - mostly by the player but suggestions by the GM. By not putting the big flashing neon "GM KEEP OUT" on the fluff, we are driven to work out the necessary details and examples and "how this relationship works" well before it comes up in game. [B]To some that might make us [I]irrational[/I]... but for us... it works. [/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification