Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6900800" data-attributes="member: 177">I think you crossed the streams.&nbsp; In the *religion* example, we are afraid of the GM imposing his own &quot;values&quot;&nbsp; (they aren't values in any moral or ethical sense - they are game-preferences, no more a &quot;value&quot; than pepperoni on a pizza).&nbsp; The GM has a thought that in-game religion should be taken seriously.&nbsp; The players, apparently have the value that in-game religion should be ignored and mocked (someone can correct me if that's not the right impression - it is a long thread, after all).Well, if the GM forces the players to play his or her way, that's imposing on them.&nbsp; If the players force him/her to run the game their way, they are the ones imposing.&nbsp; Imposing can go either way, is the point.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not it is &quot;approriate&quot; (that connotes a moral/ethical judgement I'm not passing right now), I think it is an *ineffective* way to go about it that it fraught with pitfalls.Yes, but then our advice should then be a repeated, &quot;have a talk with your players,&quot; rather than lectures on bullying.Yeah, on page one, they mentioned having, &quot;broached the subject out of character.&quot;&nbsp; Not a whole lot of detail, and I don't see anyone thought to ask about that conversation before making bully accusations.&nbsp; That makes those accusations seem.. more than a tad premature.&nbsp; &nbsp; No, he doesn't.&nbsp; Post #68, by the OP: &quot;My goal is to create a campaign that everyone enjoys, and certainly not to browbeat anyone into playing &quot;my way&quot;. I'd like a more serious game, so it sounds like I should talk to my players more directly.&quot;&nbsp; So, really, cut the OP some slack already, please.&nbsp; With respect, did you ask about the conversation?&nbsp; I didn't see you do so, but maybe I missed it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't see the OP talking about it in depth.&nbsp; So, I don't think you can say anything was done, &quot;clearly&quot;. and I would suggest you reassess.Managing this aspect of games is a skill. It is something you learn.&nbsp; The first couple times, maybe you don't realize what is clear, and what isn't, what communication works, and what doesn't.&nbsp; So, you end up in an unsatisfactory situation, and turn to others to help, and maybe you wind up asking the wrong questions.&nbsp; Dumping a load of accusation on those wrong questions probably doesn't help the GM find their way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6900800, member: 177"] I think you crossed the streams. In the *religion* example, we are afraid of the GM imposing his own "values" (they aren't values in any moral or ethical sense - they are game-preferences, no more a "value" than pepperoni on a pizza). The GM has a thought that in-game religion should be taken seriously. The players, apparently have the value that in-game religion should be ignored and mocked (someone can correct me if that's not the right impression - it is a long thread, after all). Well, if the GM forces the players to play his or her way, that's imposing on them. If the players force him/her to run the game their way, they are the ones imposing. Imposing can go either way, is the point. Whether or not it is "approriate" (that connotes a moral/ethical judgement I'm not passing right now), I think it is an *ineffective* way to go about it that it fraught with pitfalls. Yes, but then our advice should then be a repeated, "have a talk with your players," rather than lectures on bullying. Yeah, on page one, they mentioned having, "broached the subject out of character." Not a whole lot of detail, and I don't see anyone thought to ask about that conversation before making bully accusations. That makes those accusations seem.. more than a tad premature. No, he doesn't. Post #68, by the OP: "My goal is to create a campaign that everyone enjoys, and certainly not to browbeat anyone into playing "my way". I'd like a more serious game, so it sounds like I should talk to my players more directly." So, really, cut the OP some slack already, please. With respect, did you ask about the conversation? I didn't see you do so, but maybe I missed it. I don't see the OP talking about it in depth. So, I don't think you can say anything was done, "clearly". and I would suggest you reassess. Managing this aspect of games is a skill. It is something you learn. The first couple times, maybe you don't realize what is clear, and what isn't, what communication works, and what doesn't. So, you end up in an unsatisfactory situation, and turn to others to help, and maybe you wind up asking the wrong questions. Dumping a load of accusation on those wrong questions probably doesn't help the GM find their way. [/QUOTE]

Verification