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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9733581" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Again, I don't accept this definition as phrased because it makes all sorts of things "metagaming" when they trivially obviously aren't.Personally I think you're getting massively hung up on calling this "metagaming" as though that were in any way useful. It isn't. The fault is that the player is being a jerk. Calling it "metagaming" adds nothing except a distracting discussion about what "metagaming" means.Whether this is metagaming is irrelevant. Bob should not be in a group with Joe. Bob acting on his hate is a jerk thing to do. Whether or not it is metagaming does not matter; the fact that it is jerk behavior is more than enough.If the spell fails and everything you know says it shouldn't fail, that's a dead giveaway.If the GM is secretly injecting house-rules, they're engaging in jerk behavior and should be censured for it. House-rules that modify the existing rules should never be secret. If they merely add more stuff, without changing what already exists, then it isn't mandatory that they be known....but most of the time they should still be known.It's not a huge jump. The fact that the spell failed at all is a HUGE red flag.Not one portion of that reflects what you described. "Relaxed" does not mean being callously indifferent. It does not mean being antagonistic to knowing the rules. That's a HUGE leap completely unjustified by the word "casual". I'm not the only person saying this either. Your use of the word does not match how people usually use the word.When I hear a "casual" GM, I think it's going to be:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This GM won't get mad about small rules errors. They'll let an issue slide and just make sure we don't make the same mistake in the future.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">When something doesn't go according to plan, they'll laugh it off, or see it as a learning experience</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Cracking jokes and being silly is okay in this group, because the GM isn't overly-serious</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The GM might make a mistake from time to time, but they won't get upset if you tell them about it</li> </ul>Your so-called "Casual" GM is actively malicious, hates the very idea of rules, and is actively capricious and rude. As another poster already said, your description makes them sound like they're hostile to the very idea of being GM. That's NOT what "casual" means!Your use of the word "metagaming" is so loose, it describes at least three quarters of all actions taken as a result of play. When the vast majority of gaming is metagaming, don't you think your standard has become so loose as to be meaningless?How can that be so? If you design a monster, you're metagaming. If you write a plot, you're metagaming. If you make a decision for an NPC, you're metagaming.By your standard, every time you decide to do something as GM, you're metagaming.Actually, the number of jerks in the general population is quite low, and statistical evidence backs me up on this. Despite the fact that our population is steadily increasing, even with the COVID bump driving crime up, average violent crime per capita has gone down every decade for over a century. Deaths due to violence of any kind have gone down over the past century relative to the previous, even when you count BOTH WORLD WARS.The fact is, the world isn't nearly as full of jerks as you think it is.No. I've played with quite a few. None have been even remotely like what you've described.Gonna be honest here Bloodtide, this doesn't sound at all representative. Like...this sounds like you're talking about a small group of very specific people that you know in real life. It's not a common archetype.This description is so loose it could apply to literally all human beings who have ever played TTRPGs. Particularly because your "buzz words" can easily mean just...ordinary English being used in a way you don't agree with.You're going to drive away far, FAR more non-jerk players than jerk players with this. Jerk players will usually love this sort of thing. It means they're being told right from the outset that they can do violent, sexual, or harmful things to others, because that's part of the tone.I think you are contributing to the very thing you think you're fighting against.The first of these two is also going to drive away far more non-jerk players than jerk ones, as it communicates to players that your concern is control, that all you care about is controlling what they do, not enjoying a good experience with the group. The second is equivocal. I've heard plenty of stories about jerk GMs who use that standard to screw over their players completely unnecessarily, basically just to delight in screwing them over.</blockquote>

Verification