does CN get a bad rap?

[Seeten]

Assume much?
Hollow cheap shots at my relationship with my players might sound clever, but they don't change reality.

Knowing who can and can not handle a certain roles before they screw up everything for all the other players comes much higher on the list of keys in the real world.

And knowing that there are perfectly valid alternaitves that let everyone have fun instead is also an earlier key.

I see P-Kitty already jumped in, but I'm not offended, just wondering, why you think what I said was a cheap shot, or even a dig at you?

I'm not saying I'm above snide comments, but my comments where I quoted what you said didnt take any liberties and werent snide. I meant what I said, and what I said wasnt inflammatory.

Trust is important. I game with friends, and friends only. Even my online campaigns I take special care to get to know the DM and players and develop relationships, so they can judge fairly who I am, and what I stand for.

I never stated you did not trust anyone, all I said was, and I quote, "Trust is the first key to good gaming."

I'm sorry you feel slighted, or harshed, though. It was not my intention.

 

[Seeten]

Now you are basing your arguement on abusing a word YOU substituted into the debate.

"Trust" was a stretch when you narrowly applied it to the reality of either (a) being aware that a player would have a hard time not beign disruptive in a specific role or (b) simply not knowing a given player well enough to be certain and not risking it when other options are available.
But what the hell, it wasn't worth arguing.

Now you are turning around and misrepresnting the whole thing as being at the crux of whether a player is worthy to be at the table with you. That is absurb.

There are a lot of players out there who become anti-fun in certain roles. Some because they revert to jerks, but many for less overt reasons. If you really can jump in your mind from that to someone you could not game with due to "trust", then you are vastly oversimplfying the situation to your own lose.

I have to say a simple No to most of this. First, I'm not misinterpreting anything. I used the word trust for specific reasons, and there is no abuse in using it.

Second, if I dont trust a player to play CN, or LG, or a Paladin, or to not powergame, and discussing it with him does not change the situation, I do not game with that person. Period. To quote Crothian, "Life is too short to play crappy games" and that is what that is, TO ME. You are a different person with your own definition of good and bad gaming, which you are welcome to. I'm sure not calling it badwrongfun.

Third, if someone becomes Mr. Poopy Pants because he's playing someone thats Lawful-Neutral, why is he doing it? Why is the rest of the group allowing it to happen? Did someone FORCE him to be a Cleric? Did he want to be 5 other things that got vetoed, and so he's rping choice #6? Regardless, if talking to him doesnt resolve the situation, I'd certainly ask him to leave. I think the situation might be caused by not trusting him to play his first choices though. I'd rather give him rope, and let him hang himself, personally.

 

[pawsplay]

If you trust someone, and they reward that trust with abuse, you've learned something valuable. That person is not to be trusted, and should be shown the door and gamed with no longer. Problem solved. Next?

Now you can replace them with someone trustworthy, and share a great time.

And in the meantime, you've had some really bad gaming, which is all I said in the first place.

There's a saying, "The opposite of a small truth is a falsehood; the opposite of a great truth is another great truth."

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you trust someone and they reward that trust with abuse, then you suffer a lot. Even good players have an egoistic episode now and then. Gaming is a cooperative experience, and it's up to the GM to rein in a lot of in-game issues.

This is kind of askew of the main thrust of the thread, but it raises some questions. Like, how does a lack of trust in the players enable a GM to reign in those issues better? It would seem to be that trusting the players to cooperate with the GM's plan would be essential to resolving any issues that occur.