Dealing with an "oldschool" DM

[Doodles]

Wouldn't that make you, therefore, among the worst possible candidates to determine the value of the idea?

"I don't understand X, but I am expert enough to claim that X is crap" seems somewhat illogical to me.


RC

LOL! Brilliant. That made me laugh.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Please avoid RL religion in EN World discussions.

That said, either you believe you understand it enough to make that statement (making the first part of the statement an untruth) or you are not qualified to hold the opinion in the second part of the statement (making it unwise).

Or so rationality would claim.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can't speak for Storm Raven, but it could just be:
"I follow the argument, listen to the stated reasons, and do disagree with the conclusions." That's a kind of "not understanding", but I still think in a way you can critisize it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I can't speak for Storm Raven, but it could just be:
"I follow the argument, listen to the stated reasons, and do disagree with the conclusions." That's a kind of "not understanding", but I still think in a way you can critisize it.

If you are able to follow the argument, and you listen to the stated reasons, then you "understand" the argument and are able to hold a rational opinion on it. In which case "I don't understand....." is false.



RC

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

Okay, so we just had a threadban because someone could no longer keep to the rules in this discussion. Let's not have any others go that way.

 

[Gentlegamer]

you quoted[/i] I said :"[t]he player's should be able to expect that the rules of the game are the rules being used unless they are informed otherwise, . . . "

As I pointed out before, house rules are fine, so long as the DM, lets the players know about the changes ahead of time, and that the players have the opportunity to agree with the changes or decide the game just won't be to their liking. But the ideas that the DM should randomly change the rules "just because" and without notice, or that there are rules that the DM should change and not worry about what the players think "because they are rules from the DMG" are just silly.

Can the DM explain his refereeing philosophy ("the RAW are just guidelines I use for adjudication, don't base your in-game expectations wholly on them") or must he produce a line item document and go over every departure from the RAW point-by-point?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If you are able to follow the argument, and you listen to the stated reasons, then you "understand" the argument and are able to hold a rational opinion on it. In which case "I don't understand....." is false.

Or it isn't because you don't agree with the premises or a conclusion made. Possibly because there is subjective part to it, or because there is really something missing or something wrong. In that case, you don't understand it that you are making an argument that you simply cannot agree to, because the premises or conclusions are wrong, but you clearly seem to believe it is true.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Or it isn't because you don't agree with the premises or a conclusion made. Possibly because there is subjective part to it, or because there is really something missing or something wrong. In that case, you don't understand it that you are making an argument that you simply cannot agree to, because the premises or conclusions are wrong, but you clearly seem to believe it is true.

Sorry, MR, but I am not following what you are trying to say here.

"I don't understand X", if true, means that I have no authority to make a claim as to the nature of X. It may also be that I only understand part of X, so that my ability to make a rational claim about X is limited to the scope of what I understand about X. However, my understanding of any given thing is the absolute limit to which I can know anything about it (and thus, to my ability to make rational statements about it).

So long as one intends to communicate rationally, this is something that simply cannot be gotten around.

Some examples:

1. I understand some parts about how my car works enough to repair them; others I do not. I can offer rational advice only on repairing those parts I understand, and that advice is rational only to the limit of my understanding.

2. If I fail to understand how to use Microsoft Excel, then my ability to rationally make a spreadsheet with Excel is limited solely by my ability to gain understanding (either through training or using the Help fuction). I cannot rationally say that Excel is crap for making spreadsheets unless I understand Excel, after which I can make a rational conclusion as to its effectiveness (which, IMHO, is pretty good).

3. I cannot rationally answer a question related to the "old-schoolness" of GURPS because I don't have sufficient grasp of GURPS, either in the case of rules or of play experience, to have a valuable opinion. If I undertook to understand GURPS more fully, my opinion of GURPS would be as good as -- and no better than -- my understanding of it.


RC

 

[roguerouge]

This is all well and good, but do good DMs of any edition berate their players for exploring, threaten to change PC alignments when the players fail to read their minds, and not run their own monsters effectively? No. In any edition and by any rule set or violation thereof, the DM stinks.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is all well and good, but do good DMs of any edition berate their players for exploring, threaten to change PC alignments when the players fail to read their minds, and not run their own monsters effectively? No. In any edition and by any rule set or violation thereof, the DM stinks.

When faced with a game you don't enjoy; don't play.

When faced with a game you are going to play; try to enjoy it.

In this case, though, I would consider the Drow Tower encounter as a real warning flag, as though the DM is considering punishing the players because the encounter didn't play out as he wished it to.

I would never, under any circumstances, play in a game where the DM thought that he could/should make choices for the PCs (barring mind control, which isn't really making choices for the PCs)......assuming that I wasn't helping said DM learn the ropes, anyway.


RC