Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9747789" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yes, very much this.&quot;I made an exchange with a powerful being in order to have power myself&quot; does not justify heavy-handed GMing, and all this &quot;making patrons matter&quot; constantly dances around what exactly it means for them to &quot;matter&quot;, hence why I've asked. [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER] has made clear that it &quot;mattering&quot; has some significant limits. They'll come up, they'll communicate, they'll possibly even ask for favors, services, or demanded acts. Only in fairly extreme circumstances would anything like being cut off occur, and if it did, the player should expect options to proceed from there, such as alternative patrons expressing interest. These things need to take time, so that the player actually gets a chance to respond.In other words: the GM agreeing to limitations. Openly. Specifically. Not just relying on some nebulous &quot;social contract&quot; to handle absolutely all concerns, meaning you never have any idea where you stand and expectations are airy-fairy right up until they're ironclad and you should've known them from the beginning. But this, just...communicating, setting some boundaries, providing room for give and take? That's all I really ask for. But doing so, rather than relying on the &quot;social contract&quot; to handle absolutely everything, is like pulling teeth--or so you'd think given the discourse around here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9747789, member: 6790260"] Yes, very much this. "I made an exchange with a powerful being in order to have power myself" does not justify heavy-handed GMing, and all this "making patrons matter" constantly dances around what exactly it [I]means[/I] for them to "matter", hence why I've asked. [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER] has made clear that it "mattering" has some significant limits. They'll come up, they'll communicate, they'll possibly even ask for favors, services, or demanded acts. Only in fairly extreme circumstances would anything like being cut off occur, and if it [I]did[/I], the player should expect options to proceed from there, such as alternative patrons expressing interest. These things need to take time, so that the player actually gets a chance to respond. In other words: the GM [I]agreeing to limitations[/I]. Openly. Specifically. Not just relying on some nebulous "social contract" to handle absolutely all concerns, meaning you never have any idea where you stand and expectations are airy-fairy right up until they're ironclad and you should've known them from the beginning. But this, just...communicating, setting some boundaries, providing room for give and take? That's all I really ask for. But doing so, rather than relying on the "social contract" to handle absolutely everything, is like pulling teeth--or so you'd think given the discourse around here. [/QUOTE]

Verification