Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maggan" data-source="post: 635831" data-attributes="member: 6616">So this is suddenly about me? Nice! Wow, now this thread is about me, and how awful and stupid my approach to things are. Cool. Or not. But I liked this reply from you, Forrester, lot better than Geoff's earlier. But I still don't like the way the word "stupid" is thrown around in this discussion. It's so easy for someone to take that word as an insult, even if you phrase it with "I think it's stupid...".Oh, well.For me a game is a game. I don't require full immersion by my players at any time, that's just my style. So in-game and out-of-game tends to be meshed. Which, incidentally, is what I believed is the way most people play. I might be wrong though, it might just be here in Sweden it works like this.And from that follows that I use whatever means available to me to make sure the group have a good time, in-game and out-of-game. And contrary to what you think, it works. And that means killing PCs at a whim, or telling someone to shut up if they are blubbing when I or someone else speaks, or fudging the rolls if I want to, or smacking someone if the lean to close to the DM Screen. Or whatever.I mean, what is more disruptive to a session and to a group, a player arguing with the DM halting the game, or a player reprimanded and the game then continuing (with or without that player)?And the PC death is far from random. The way the PC dies might be random, but the death is far from random. Mess with the DM, transgress the rules of conduct to much, and your PC dies. Simple, non-random.But I feel that you are making too much of my little advice here. It is a tongue in cheek solution, that works as long as people are informed of it before play starts. And I think the original poster would have had less problems with "Bob" had he used some of my approach to the matter. Call it a preemptive rule, if you will.Or, to lend a Hackmaster term, a grudge rule.At least, with my solution, you point to the problem, and adress it, leaving an option for the player to remain in the game. Of course, it's a bit cruel, but then after you sit through a lot of DMing at conventions, you develop a tendency towards a cruel, unforgiving style. Try it, it might be fun.And to put this little discussion in perspective, if we are to follow the vote of the majority in this thread, we should boot the guy ("Bob") out of the door. Some even suggested killing him. Is that a better solution?And are those solutions really less stupid solutions?As an aside, I have had to use this rule once. Once. One time. When I read your horrified condemnation of my style of DMing, I feel like a killer DM, and begin to suspect that I should switch from heavy intrigue based investigation roleplaying to... let's say... Hackmaster.But alas. I'm a soft guy at the core. I will still ask my group what they think, and I will still tell them what I think, and we will still play without anyone rules lawyering, because we have agreed that we don't like that. And if anyone ever forgets... it makes for a fun moment for the others. And for me.And as long as we're having fun, I don't think our approach is stupid.Cheers Maggan</blockquote>

Verification