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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercutio01" data-source="post: 5751917" data-attributes="member: 37277">So you pick the weakest part of my argument (and I admit it is that), ignoring the far more apt description, and then cast my entire argument as just the weakest bit. Please, try to address the real issue. The GM, and all of the other players, showed up to play A game (to use your terminology) while the OP showed up to play B game. He was then told that B game was not what was going on, and that he should read up on A game to get a better feel for what the goal is.That is my actual argument. The GM and the other players set up a social contract to play a Walking Dead inspired GURPS game, and came into it with all the expectations as set by that show. The OP wasn't familiar with the show, and so didn't understand the social contract as agreed upon by everyone else at the table. After the game, the GM did the right thing, gave the OP copies of the show to watch to better understand what the social contract of the game entails, and was asked to try to adhere to that contract.So, the GM failed the initial explanation. The OP didn't take it upon himself to resolve the problem. He acted counter to the social contract (which wasn't fully explained), and as a method of explaining the contract after the game, the GM provided the source material.There are now two (well, there are always more than two choices) choices for the OP. Adhere to the social contract as he now understands it, or skip out on the game since he's unwilling to sign on. Both are legitimate responses to the situation.</blockquote>

Verification