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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9894248" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I'm going to be honest here.While Tigris is overgeneralizing about this, and there's no reason a GM cannot make an effort to understand what his players think of his game, he's also not wrong that a lot of players have been taught that honesty in their response to games is as welcome at the GM's end of the table as day old fish.  This often means that even when playing with a GM that might be much more willing to accept criticism, they'll keep it to themselves.  This is made all the worse by some people who think someone playing in a game that isn't ideal for them may well drag the game down, because they may well rather play even in a suboptimal game than not play at all.Now in your particular case it sounds like your players were very proactive about telling you they liked what the game was providing.  So its unlikely to just be a case of passive avoidance of criticism.But that only works if we take your statements at face value, and given I've seen people claim players were great about [game operation process X] when I've talked to some of same players and seen them privately say to the contrary, I can understand taking such statements with a grain of salt.  But in the end, if you're not going to trust someone's understanding of what's going on in their game, I think it pays to simply disengage with them when that comes up, since otherwise you're accusing them of either lying or being deluded.  That may, in fact, be your view of it, but it hardly seems a viable basis for discussion.Edit: Essentially, I'm suggesting to [USER=7043270]@Tigris[/USER] that he'd be better off giving you the benefit of the doubt here even if he's dubious, because otherwise it seems pointlessly confrontational.</blockquote>

Verification