Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3663917" data-attributes="member: 18280">I don't think that was missed.&nbsp; It was covered earlier, and offered no real bone of contention.&nbsp; It seems that we all agree that the DM in question needed advice about how and when to give players this sort of information.&nbsp; Most of us, I think, agree that the SMG article did a poor job of this, because it didn't even make the attempt.Hell, when you have some of the people who've agreed with me on this thread agreeing with me, you know that there is no possibility of sqeezing out a single iota of reasonable conflict!In fact, the only things that we don't seem to all agree on are playstyle issues (how much exposition should the DM provide, and how immediately relevant must it be) and whether or not the DM is a &quot;special case&quot; in terms of normal civil behaviour at a game (i.e., must the players show the DM the same degree of consideration that they expect?).That the article seems to imply that the DM need be shown no consideration rankles.&nbsp; That the DM is given no advice for how to integrate his reasons for playing into the game, and making them interesting to the players insofar as possible, rankles more.&nbsp; That the players in question are effectively encouraged in their antisocial behaviour both toward the DM and toward the other players rankles the most.IMHO, at least.It was a really bad article, one of the worst SMGs (and I don't often agree with SMG anyway, so this is at the bottom of a stinking heap for me).RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3663917, member: 18280"] I don't think that was missed. It was covered earlier, and offered no real bone of contention. It seems that we all agree that the DM in question needed advice about how and when to give players this sort of information. Most of us, I think, agree that the SMG article did a poor job of this, because it didn't even make the attempt. Hell, when you have some of the people who've agreed with me on this thread agreeing with me, you know that there is no possibility of sqeezing out a single iota of reasonable conflict! In fact, the only things that we don't seem to all agree on are playstyle issues (how much exposition should the DM provide, and how immediately relevant must it be) and whether or not the DM is a "special case" in terms of normal civil behaviour at a game (i.e., must the players show the DM the same degree of consideration that they expect?). That the article seems to imply that the DM need be shown no consideration rankles. That the DM is given no advice for how to integrate his reasons for playing into the game, and making them interesting to the players insofar as possible, rankles more. That the players in question are effectively encouraged in their antisocial behaviour both toward the DM and toward the other players rankles the most. IMHO, at least. It was a really bad article, one of the worst SMGs (and I don't often agree with SMG anyway, so this is at the bottom of a stinking heap for me). RC [/QUOTE]

Verification