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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 8005373" data-attributes="member: 6993955">[USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] - I might disagree about evidence for bad faith play. From the description, at least part of the player decision making stemmed form boredom. That doesn't always result in bad faith play, but it certainly can. So we're at least in the right ballpark. Also, the lack of interest in and interaction with the variety of lifelines subsequently thrown by the DM also could index bad faith play. I'm not suggesting that bad faith is the case, only that there is enough circumstantial evidence for the possibility that the idea is worth bringing into the discussion.I don't think 'not breaking any rules' moves the inquiry forward either, which is why I though we might switch the conversation from right and wrong to good and bad, although I might now push that even further to useful and not useful. What we're really talking about the is use of the latitude provided the DM by the rules. Also at issue, and why I came back to my point above, is that adjudication is fine, but the conversation that moves the fiction forward has two sides, and the DM can only control his half. So we are also talking about good and bad, and useful and not useful, in terms of player engagement with the outcome of adjudication. The extent to which 'good GMing", whatever that exactly is, might have avoided this mess is also dependent on player response, which seems to have been an issue.</blockquote>

Verification