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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6867232" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Missed this bit earlier.  And this seems like a great opportunity for COMMUNICATION FAIL BECAUSE ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY!  But first...GM latitude isn't frightening.  Just so you understand my perspective (if it hasn't been clear), I exclusively GM.  Simply put, at this point in my GMing tenure, I'm entirely of the position that offloading unwanted overhead onto system (if it cannot be removed entirely...which it often can) and players is extremely desirable.  It (a) keeps me fresh and focused on the key areas where my mental acuity and skill need to be at their best and has consistently shown the lovely knock-on effects of (b) assisting in transparency (therefore trust and/or removal of player insecurity), (c) facilitating maximal player agency, (d) which in turn facilitates player buy-in and engagement in setting, situation, and the emergent story.  These things pretty much universally coincide with my latitude being constrained and the machinery of play procedures being transparent.That being said, I can still run a wicked game of CoC where I have basically complete latitude and the players have, effectively, minimal to 0 agency over the big-ticket outcomes.  I'll do that as a one-shot now and again, no problem (and enjoy myself).  Or I can run a wicked, creepy, logistics-intensive dungeon crawl using RC or Torchbearer (which requires a little bit more overhead).One other thing before "crappy analogy that people will inevitably complain about its relevance and application even though I'm utterly right and they're wrong...because me."  Lets make sure we're on the same page.The first GM has less latitude and less overhead than the second GM by default:1)  System explicitly advocates:Play By the Rules (where rules are straight-forward, transparent, and with no real unforeseeable second order interactions where rules intersect)2)  System advocates:Abide by, change, or ignore the rules at your discretion (where the rules are written in an open-ended fashion which require interpretation, by design, and with enough complexity in rules intersections that some wobbly second order interactions are to be expected).Yes?  Hope so.Ok...what we've all been waiting for...ITS CRAPPY ANALOGY TIME!Do you watch American Football?  Again, hope so.So over the last few years, there have been maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany rules changes to (allegedly) protect players (but certainly not to protect the NFL shield from further liability).  I'm going to focus on one.Hit on a defenseless receiver:A receiver who is clearly tracking the football and is in a defenseless posturewill receive defenseless player protections. It will be a foul to hit this player forcibly in the head or neck area, or use the crown or hairline parts of the helmet. Violations result in a 15-yard penalty that will be enforced after the change of possession.Note what I have bolded and underlined.  This is extraordinary subjective rules language which requires split-second interpretation of multiple (squishy) vectors in an event unfolding and people moving at extraordinary speeds.  It should come as no surprise that a very uncomfortable percentage of these calls are dubious or flat-out wrong.  And a 15 yard penalty and retention of the ball on a play that should yield 4th and 19 (and a post-punt change of possession), or possibly a turnover (and immediate change of possession and field position), is utterly game changing for American Football.  Utterly.  Not just tangibly.  But the intangible effect to momentum and the extreme hit to morale for the team afflicted by the insidious nature of this rule.This rule has DRAMATICALLY impacted (a) referee overhead, (b) referee latitude, (c) player agency on the field (not just in their physical play but in their mental makeup; eg demoralized and/or insecure), (d) players pocketbooks (fines and suspensions w/out pay).  All of this has affected (e) play outcomes (affecting gambling, games, and seasons) which in turn affects (f) personnel (including coaches) agency off the field (retention/loss of jobs and upward mobility, especially impacting the limited earning potential window for players).[HR][/HR]That is a long post with lots of stuff.  I'll stop now and let you, or anyone else, comment on my crappy analogy that will in no way move the needle of conversation positively.</blockquote>

Verification