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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 7893382" data-attributes="member: 75787">I asked, for the KIDS ON BIKES example, what the GM should, do about a player who continually uses non-kid player knowledge to decide their character actions. I think Iserith is suggesting my second option is the one to employ:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The GM should not play the sorts of adventures the game was designed for and instead run it only with adventures that do not depend on the players acting as kids.</li> </ul>For me, this is a step too far. The fun of playing KIDS ON BIKES is that you play, well, kids. You act like kids, you do stupid things that kids would do, and so on. If the GM is then required to set up challenges that an adult would approach exactly the same way as a kid would, it seems that is going directly against what the game is designed to do. For me, the cost of making the GM sole responsible for meta gaming (removing all challenges where kids behave like kids and not adults) is too high. I think that if you have established that the genre requires players to act like kids, it is the players fault if they do not, in fact, act like kids.I'm not saying it's a bad way to run for everyone, but I do think you need to acknowledge that it has very high costs and will dramatically restrict the sorts of games you can run. It might be a great choice for an old-school GM-vs-players style  game (I ran such a campaign recently and we had a ton of fun doing so!) but I think that's a rarity nowadays. Now, we tend to believe that the players and GM have a shared responsibility to establish and maintain the genre and I think that's much more the default style.</blockquote>

Verification