Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7656457" data-attributes="member: 4937">So far as I know I've said nothing at all against collegial games.  I don't often play them, and in fact have rarely seen one played, but I know Greenleaf is in one with a rotating GM set in a fantasy pastiche of (IIRC) 3rd Century AD earth.  I see no reason to abhor Greenleaf his rotating DMs, though he often has funny stories about the difficulty in making that work.You actually have zero evidence that I dislike collegial games at all.  Instead, you are falsely trying to insinuate that the alternative to my suggestions is somehow more collegial, when in fact what you are trying to justify is not better described as give and take or mutual decisions or group planning or passing the token or trading narrative resources or distributed rights to declare the outcome of a proposition any other collegial technique.  What you are labeling 'collegial' is naked rules lawyering, table arguments, metagaming, and inappropriate assumption of authority in a middle of a narrative.  The argumentative player pointing out that manticores don't generally appear in forests wasn't trying to share the game at all.  He was making a false argument from authority by appealing to a guideline in a rule book.   There is nothing collegial and respectful about that, which is easily seen if we imagine the situation reverse, with the player empowered to choose the monster and the DM calling him down and saying not in this terrain.   Note the naked hypocrisy here, where Hussar asserts his rights to impose Paladins on Krynn and not expect that to be a problem, but the DM putting a Manticore in the forest as he has every right to do ought to be trumped by a player.   That isn't collegial.  That's not mutual equal and shared respect. In D&D, the general expectation is that the DM is the designated 'secret keeper' and that for the enjoyment of everyone he hides information from the player - a map of a dungeon or the location of the treasure.   The player in turn is one of the designated protagonists in an ensemble cast that is exploring and discovering the secrets.   Now of course we could play with making the DM less essential a secret keeper, opening rooms and deciding what the group thought would be more interesting as a group, and if you want to do that then more power to you but if you want to do that first its better that everyone agrees ahead of time that that is how you will be playing.   And secondly, I think that it would be a rare group that would enjoy that more than the thrill of the unknown, and the tension involved overcoming obstacles placed in front of you and all the traditional joys of traditional RPG gaming.  And when you talk about collegial gaming I really doubt you mean real collegial gaming of the sort Greenleaf does with rotating DMs and various means of sharing the story in that way while still keeping secrets.   You probably just mean something as minor as an openness to discussing rules problems, which is so trivial and irrelevant to this discussion that by throwing out 'collegial' as meaning that you'd be basically revealing along with the rest of your false contrasts that you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. First, without getting into a line by line explanation of the Luke example, do we agree that regardless of the style of game "Luke" is doing wrong?No, apparently when I'm showing an example of how to do it wrong, it's actually wrong.Several kinds of 'collegial discussions' occur at my table.  They can include things like:PC: I know we've been doing this story line with the conflicted relationship between my character and his parents, but in real life my dad just died and I was wondering if we could put that story on hold for a while because I think it's going to be a bit too intense for me right now.Me: Of course.  If you want to drop it completely or change some details, let me know.PC: I don't think I want to drop it, but if you can not bring it up for a few sessions until I've had some time, that would be great.Me: Anything you say.Me: Ok, so on a scale of 1 to 10, how badly am I allowed to mess with you?PC: 10Me: 10?  Are you sure, you'd go for a 10?  Because anything above about an 8 is going to risk madness checks from malign paradigm shifts, and in the past I had a player have his character commit suicide because he couldn't deal with the situation.PC: No seriously, bring it on.  I like messed up.Me: Ok, just remember you asked for it.Me: So, where do you see yourself going with this character?PC: I don't really know.  I just thought the mechanics were cool.Me: <Long explanation regarding the role of characters of his sort in the setting>PC: Wait a minute, so I was probably around when <Other PC's great-grand parent> was around right?  So actually, I might have been the one who saved him from the massacre?Me: Yes, that makes sense.  In fact, thinking about it, almost no one else would have been positioned to do so.PC: So can I tie my destiny to whatever you are doing with <Other PC>.Me: I'd have to ask <other player>, but that would fit.Player: <hands me long 8 page backstory in which he invents all sorts of details about his past life, relations, and so forth, basically imposing NPCs into existence in the world and implying various hitherto unconsidered nefarious plots>Me: Ok, I'll approve all of this, but there are a few details regarding your description of elven culture that I'd like to have you rework to fit better with existing canon in my homebrew.  Let me mail you the player's guide to elven culture.   However, briefly, one thing you should know about elves is that it is impossible to enslave them.  If you imprison one against their will, they waste away and die as quickly as if you or I would die if we went without water....Player: Sure, as long as I can keep the basic idea here.Me: I don't think there will be a problem with that.Player: I thought you could attempt the Circle maneuver without drawing an attack of opportunity?Me: Ahh... yeah, you're right.  You'd think that I could remember my own rules since I wrote them.We don't have rotating hat as a DM.  I generally don't allow player's to impose things on a setting after backgrounds are approved and play begins.  Players don't have final say on the rules or adjudication, and we have no process for vetoing my rulings (nor have we needed one).   So I suppose in that sense it's not a 'collegial' game.   It's a pretty traditional game where the DM controls the setting and the player's control the PC's, and neither seeks to assert control over the other save where allowed for by the rules.   However, it's rare even in the situation that the PC is mind-controlled that I have to tell them any thing more than the general constraints that they are under.  Usually I can leave them to RP their possessed/dominated/charmed character on their own.   As far as what you mean by 'collegial' game though, where everyone is playing together and cooperating to create the story, then it is seriously collegial.   PC's have more or less invented deities for the game setting, secret societies within the game setting, whole story lines, and so forth taking the game in directions I'd never anticipated both by their characters and through play.   I have the final say over the details of the setting, not the least of which because if I didn't there would be nothing to explore and uncover, but if that is dictatorial then I suggest you rob the word of any meaning.</blockquote>

Verification