Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9674625" data-attributes="member: 6790260">You will probably not be surprised to hear that I don't have a particularly high view of "GM as continuous amateur game (re-)designer", so no, that doesn't really move me either.Well, he has now backed it up with--literally--saying:...and...Where "have it both ways" specifically means, in response to what I had said in that post, which was...So yes. [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] is--literally--saying that you can have "a presumption of total innocence (unless rigorously proven otherwise) for GMs, and a presumption of guilt from players (unless rigorously proven otherwise)." That quote is now explicit and direct, in his own words responding to me.Then I refer you to his quote, just above, where he says "rules are made to be broken" as being a requirement for "advocating for [one's] character."There is no way to interpret what Lanefan has said that does not mean that players should push and push and push and push against the rules until they have completely bent them out of shape or even outright broken them. That is what Lanefan meant.Nope. Lanefan has explicitly said otherwise, as quoted above. Direct actual words: "rules, remember, are made to be broken".I read it as the former. It is not the reading that contains the element I find morally repugnant. It is the claim itself--that you have to do this in order to have a good time. That you have to treat the almighty GM with absolute and nearly unassailable trust, unless they do something so horrendously offensive that no one could possibly question that it was bad, while you also have to presume that every player WILL break the rules unless the GM presides as an active threat against anyone who does so.No? It's not the wording that is the problem. It is three things.1. GMs simply must be trusted, almost no matter what. The bar to prove distrust is extremely high.2. Players must be distrusted, genuinely no matter what. There simply isn't a bar to prove trust--they must always, and continuously, be subjected to the constant threat of ejection or other retaliation, because...3. All (smart/effective/what-have-you) players will bend every rule as far as they can possibly bend it, 100% of the time, and if they can bend it so far that it breaks, they will do that. If they believe they can get away with breaking a rule, they will break it.Those three things are all morally unacceptable to me. I just don't accept that that is, in any way, a normative standard. If a specific group elects to play by that standard, more power to them. But it is not, and cannot ever be, a norm, something that must be enforced for anything (a style, a game, anything) to function.I am 100% certain that most sandbox GMs here do not share [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s perspective on this. You most certainly don't. I am practically certain [USER=13383]@robertsconley[/USER] doesn't. I would be extremely surprised if [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER] did--not quite 99% certain he doesn't, but maybe 95%.Indeed, there's only one <s>or maybe two other people</s> person on this entire forum (that I've ever interacted with, anyway) that I would be even somewhat willing to believe that they agree with Lanefan on this topic, that the players not only can, not only should, but will bend the rules as hard as they can and (functionally always) break or at least attempt to break them.Edit: And to be clear, the standard I prefer is: (1) GMs and players alike should be presumed innocent unless reasonable evidence suggests a problem, (2) if reasonable evidence suggests that there is a problem with anyone's behavior, it should be discussed so there is a possibility of fixing the problem, and (3) GMs and players both respect the rules, but know that petition for reasonable review is valid, where how high a standard you have for "reasonable" is proportional to how foundational the rule is.A standard I would accept (but would not willingly play under) is (1) GMs and players alike can't be trusted, and must thus be held under threat of retaliation should they get caught doing something untoward to ensure they don't engage in such beahvior; (2) some common standard, whether punitive or lenient, for what counts as actually bending or breaking the rules aka "getting caught"; and (3) all (smart/effective/what-have-you) players and GMs will bend, and at least attempt to break, every rule, no matter what.I consider the latter standard rather depressing, since it creates an environment of constant distrust, suspicion, manipulation, and recrimination. But it is at least a self-consistent standard. It doesn't privilege one person above all others simply because that one person...has more power to do things? It doesn't presume that only players are doing underhanded things they would "get caught" for if it were done out in the open.</blockquote>

Verification