Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 8230356" data-attributes="member: 6801252">I think that the fulcrum of the argument over 'Game Facilitation' you guys are having is whether the job of policing such 'disruptions' is a default for facilitating the game, or a special part of that facilitation in some games where the table as a whole has agreed to that.In other words, should players seeking a GM veto on actions where one PC harms another bear the burden of seeking the agreement of their fellow players? or should players seeking an 'anything goes' experience where other PCs don't get to veto their actions using the GM or social contract bear the burden of seeking the agreement of their fellow players?This is chiefly a cultural, and ideological difference, is PVP something the group has to opt into by specifically deciding its ok, or something they have to opt out of by agreeing it isn't. Everyone has a perception of a default (or lack of a default) social contract, to some that contract might stop shorting of protecting the characters from one another, to someone else, they feel that they should have a right to restrict another's player characters actions should it harm their character. Establishing an agreement about it at the table is obviously a useful way to present this, but who has the emotional right of way barring such an agreement? There's an interrelated but separate question of whether such proscriptions are valid in cases of incidental harm e.g. 'dude I'm throwing this fireball to hit all the enemies, its not my fault you decided to run in the center after I mentioned it! I don't care that you're standing there.'</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The-Magic-Sword, post: 8230356, member: 6801252"] I think that the fulcrum of the argument over 'Game Facilitation' you guys are having is whether the job of policing such 'disruptions' is a default for facilitating the game, or a special part of that facilitation in some games where the table as a whole has agreed to that. In other words, should players seeking a GM veto on actions where one PC harms another bear the burden of seeking the agreement of their fellow players? or should players seeking an 'anything goes' experience where other PCs don't get to veto their actions using the GM or social contract bear the burden of seeking the agreement of their fellow players? This is chiefly a cultural, and ideological difference, is PVP something the group has to opt into by specifically deciding its ok, or something they have to opt out of by agreeing it isn't. Everyone has a perception of a default (or lack of a default) social contract, to some that contract might stop shorting of protecting the characters from one another, to someone else, they feel that they should have a right to restrict another's player characters actions should it harm their character. Establishing an agreement about it at the table is obviously a useful way to present this, but who has the emotional right of way barring such an agreement? There's an interrelated but separate question of whether such proscriptions are valid in cases of incidental harm e.g. 'dude I'm throwing this fireball to hit all the enemies, its not my fault you decided to run in the center after I mentioned it! I don't care that you're standing there.' [/QUOTE]

Verification