Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5538456" data-attributes="member: 18280">I guess that assessment depends upon your experience.The reason a human GM is better than a computer, IMHO and IME, is that the human GM can make judgment calls....and is therefore not 100% reliant upon the system.If a game is worth playing, IMHO and IME, &quot;Mother May I&quot; is indescribably superior to &quot;System May I&quot;.&nbsp; A person who disallows a sensible action because the system disallows it -- or a system that disallows sensible actions in the name of balance (&quot;Sorry, you only get three jump cards per session; you can't leap over that garden hose&quot;) -- makes the game not worth playing.Indeed, the whole concept of &quot;System May I&quot; assumes that the system takes precedence over the players; whereas &quot;Mother May I&quot; assumes that the Game Master is a jerk who is participating not to supply reasonably judgments and a fun game for all concerned, but rather to feed his own ego.&nbsp; It also edges into that &quot;Say Yes&quot; meme, where the GM who says &quot;No&quot; is a bad &quot;Mother May I&quot; GM.Needless to say, I think that is poppycock.&nbsp; Human adjudication in a role-playing game is always, IMHO and IME, superior to system adjudication.&nbsp; This is true even of the worst GMs I've ever encountered.&nbsp; I mean here GMs who have run games that I have walked out on because they were insufferable pricks who wanted to control how the adventure &quot;flowed&quot; and what PCs could do in enormously heavy-handed ways.&nbsp; I mean, literally, &quot;You want to just leave the ruins?&nbsp; Well, you start aging one year per minute until you change your mind!&quot; is better than System May I.YMMV, obviously, and from many conversations it seems to me that you have had some....unusually bad, let us say.....experiences that make you distrust even typical GMs.&nbsp; RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5538456, member: 18280"] I guess that assessment depends upon your experience. The reason a human GM is better than a computer, IMHO and IME, is that the human GM can make judgment calls....and is therefore not 100% reliant upon the system. If a game is worth playing, IMHO and IME, "Mother May I" is indescribably superior to "System May I". A person who disallows a sensible action because the system disallows it -- or a system that disallows sensible actions in the name of balance ("Sorry, you only get three jump cards per session; you can't leap over that garden hose") -- makes the game not worth playing. Indeed, the whole concept of "System May I" assumes that the system takes precedence over the players; whereas "Mother May I" assumes that the Game Master is a jerk who is participating not to supply reasonably judgments and a fun game for all concerned, but rather to feed his own ego. It also edges into that "Say Yes" meme, where the GM who says "No" is a bad "Mother May I" GM. Needless to say, I think that is poppycock. Human adjudication in a role-playing game is always, IMHO and IME, superior to system adjudication. This is true even of the worst GMs I've ever encountered. I mean here GMs who have run games that I have walked out on because they were insufferable pricks who wanted to control how the adventure "flowed" and what PCs could do in enormously heavy-handed ways. I mean, literally, "You want to just leave the ruins? Well, you start aging one year per minute until you change your mind!" is better than System May I. YMMV, obviously, and from many conversations it seems to me that you have had some....unusually bad, let us say.....experiences that make you distrust even typical GMs. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification