Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8222089" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, we aren't talking explicitly about this, as this is the first time it's been said. That concept is ridiculous to begin with -- no one does this.&nbsp;&nbsp; And, I don't see how this is at all true, anyway -- the promise to not change it may indeed be bad faith, but it doesn't change the argument that it can be changed and doing so doesn't impact what's revealed in play.&nbsp; To put the hypothetical to the test, let's say you have Liar Bob, Dishonest GM, but he's been able to so far trick everyone into think he's on the level, and has promised he's got everything all planned out in his notes (hint: he's lying).&nbsp; The players believe him.&nbsp; He presents a hill, which the player go over.&nbsp; Now, ol' Liar Bob, he looks at his notes (which are a doodle of a dog eating a horse, he's weird) and says, &quot;Oh, well, there's a dragon here!&quot;&nbsp; Now Liar Bob might be a liar, but he's also a mean hand at running a good fight, and has really good descriptive abilities, so the players get a rocking fight that they love.Bob played in bad faith.&nbsp; Didn't change my point at all.Nope.&nbsp; What's impacted the players is what you've introduced into the fiction for them.&nbsp; That your reasons for that are you notes is fine and dandy, but it could have been other things.&nbsp; Heck, plenty of times I've suddenly noticed that a pattern of events fits a cool idea and run with it, even though there was no reasoning behind them at the time.&nbsp; That you have notes that gave you a reason is cool, and that reason being why you introduced things into the fiction that affected the players is cool, but having those notes is only sufficient -- it is not necessary.Oh, we're back to &quot;Max's personal definitions that he's only shared after multiple posts arguing the point!&quot;&nbsp; I mean, should have anticipated it and done the definition game earlier.&nbsp; Fine, I'll accept your definition for Bad GM, retract my statement, and reissue it as there are lots of lousy GMs out there.Was he a bad GM or a lousy one?Heh.&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; I mean, most GMs mix prep and improv, and their players can't really tell the difference which is which, so this seems to be less noticeable in the notes-only GM bad faith example you gave above.&nbsp; What are the red flags available to you when you go over the hill and there's a dragon there?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8222089, member: 16814"] No, we aren't talking explicitly about this, as this is the first time it's been said. That concept is ridiculous to begin with -- no one does this. And, I don't see how this is at all true, anyway -- the promise to not change it may indeed be bad faith, but it doesn't change the argument that it can be changed and doing so doesn't impact what's revealed in play. To put the hypothetical to the test, let's say you have Liar Bob, Dishonest GM, but he's been able to so far trick everyone into think he's on the level, and has promised he's got everything all planned out in his notes (hint: he's lying). The players believe him. He presents a hill, which the player go over. Now, ol' Liar Bob, he looks at his notes (which are a doodle of a dog eating a horse, he's weird) and says, "Oh, well, there's a dragon here!" Now Liar Bob might be a liar, but he's also a mean hand at running a good fight, and has really good descriptive abilities, so the players get a rocking fight that they love. Bob played in bad faith. Didn't change my point at all. Nope. What's impacted the players is what you've introduced into the fiction for them. That your reasons for that are you notes is fine and dandy, but it could have been other things. Heck, plenty of times I've suddenly noticed that a pattern of events fits a cool idea and run with it, even though there was no reasoning behind them at the time. That you have notes that gave you a reason is cool, and that reason being why you introduced things into the fiction that affected the players is cool, but having those notes is only sufficient -- it is not necessary. Oh, we're back to "Max's personal definitions that he's only shared after multiple posts arguing the point!" I mean, should have anticipated it and done the definition game earlier. Fine, I'll accept your definition for Bad GM, retract my statement, and reissue it as there are lots of lousy GMs out there. Was he a bad GM or a lousy one? Heh. Sure. I mean, most GMs mix prep and improv, and their players can't really tell the difference which is which, so this seems to be less noticeable in the notes-only GM bad faith example you gave above. What are the red flags available to you when you go over the hill and there's a dragon there? [/QUOTE]

Verification