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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 8608499" data-attributes="member: 6701124">You asked in #2794 why we sit down with players we don't trust.  I said we pretty much always pick a DM we know something about (as a player or DM), but sometimes pick up players we know nothing about.No, it was an attempt to point out the logistics and why its less risky in terms of running a continuing game or  campaign to take on a player of unknown quality than it is to take on a GM of unknown quality.  A particular game can usually progress if a single player is gone for any reason, but not if the GM is.Given that, it feels like the math says if you want a continuing game to happen and you have several trustworthy people and several folks of unknown trust, your estimated odds of a successful game are larger with a trustworthy GM than with the GM of unknown trust.Being trustworthy is a necessary but not sufficient quality to be a good GM.Being a GM doesn't make one trustworthy.One isn't trustworthy because they're the GM.But hopefully the group (of three other player and a GM that a new player is seeking to join) picked someone to GM in part because they trusted them.They at least have the other people in the group vouching for the DM.  (If one person shows up at a restaurant with 3 repeat customers eating there, the new arrival knows at least three people like it.   Granted, it might be awful and the three might have actively bad taste in restaurants... so the new person might not want to be in an eating club with them anyway.)Would the three other players at the table continue playing with a bad GM if they were good players and had any other choices?  (If we're imagining an established table).If we're imagining an all new table, then the good player joining a group of 3 + DM would have a 10% chance of a bad DM and 27.1% of at least one bad player among the three (using equal individual bad probabilities of 10%).  If you crank the bad DM chance to 25%, there is still a higher percent chance of at least one other bad player at the table (still 27.1%).  All with made-up numbers of course.Would you expect the chance of a randomly selected player to be bad to be about the same as that of a randomly selected DM?  If not, what ratio would you go with?Being trustworthy is a necessary but not sufficient quality to be a good GM.Being a GM doesn't make one trustworthy.A campaign can often survive removing one untrustworthy player.  A campaign can often not survive removing the GM.  (Although another player could step up and run a new one).I hope I clarified.</blockquote>

Verification