Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 7951244" data-attributes="member: 32740">And of course it includes notes at the outset that it isn't expected that everyone agree with everything as written therein.&nbsp; It's a starting point for people to work out their own issues, create their own &quot;manifesto&quot; that includes the things that they think need to be mentioned.Well the penultimate one is intended to address what I see as the inexplicable practice of LETTING the game fall apart because of certain otherwise unacceptable choices and actions... and only THEN getting upset about the fallout of that.&nbsp; Example: for no reason and out of the blue a player says, &quot;My character is going to kill the shop keeper.&quot;&nbsp; The DM then assumes the shop keeper is dead and there follows hours of arguments and heartache because the player did unacceptable things.&nbsp; Well -I- say that the DM should have stopped the game before assuming the killing actually took place and BEFORE permitting it finding out WHY the player is doing this disruptive thing and if it is determined that it is being done for no good reason but being disruptive, rather than LETTING it disrupt and trying to fix it afterward, simply not letting it happen in the first place.&nbsp; It is common to see DM's wail about, &quot;The players did this and then did that and the whole game fell apart!&quot;&nbsp; Yes, the players are wrong to have done that - but the DM LET them do it while knowing it was pointless and disruptive and is therefore not without blame for the aftermath.Maybe I should rewrite that one to make that clearer.&nbsp; I haven't touched the thing in general for years.The last point, of course, I think still stands as is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 7951244, member: 32740"] And of course it includes notes at the outset that it isn't expected that everyone agree with everything as written therein. It's a [I]starting[/I] point for people to work out their own issues, create their own "manifesto" that includes the things that [I]they[/I] think need to be mentioned. Well the penultimate one is intended to address what I see as the inexplicable practice of LETTING the game fall apart because of certain otherwise unacceptable choices and actions... and only THEN getting upset about the fallout of that. Example: for no reason and out of the blue a player says, "My character is going to kill the shop keeper." The DM then assumes the shop keeper is dead and there follows hours of arguments and heartache because the player did unacceptable things. Well -I- say that the DM should have stopped the game before assuming the killing actually took place and BEFORE permitting it finding out WHY the player is doing this disruptive thing and if it is determined that it is being done for no good reason but being disruptive, rather than LETTING it disrupt and trying to fix it afterward, simply not letting it happen in the first place. It is common to see DM's wail about, "The players did this and then did that and the whole game fell apart!" Yes, the players are wrong to have done that - but the DM LET them do it while knowing it was pointless and disruptive and is therefore not without blame for the aftermath. Maybe I should rewrite that one to make that clearer. I haven't touched the thing in general for years. The last point, of course, I think still stands as is. [/QUOTE]

Verification