NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9118813" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Okay.My problem is that this whole line of reasoning is essentially equivalent to the "altruism doesn't exist, because you get something out of doing good for others, even if that 'something' is just the feeling of having done something good." Which is a load of hooey--it uses a definition of "altruism" that is just dumb, but which is being passed off as though it were identical to the actual definition (which is perfectly compatible with people feeling good about the good things they do.)On the one hand, if we allow this watered-down meaning of "game the GM," where it's literally just "pick things you know the GM likes," then it has no real meaning at all. That's literally just being a good player. The point can be conceded because it is an unequivocal good, not some kind of exploit--because "advantage" here can mean things as simple as "the group has a better time."On the other, if we use the definition of "advantage" that people keep pushing--unfairly improved chances of success by manipulating the GM psychologically--then it clearly doesn't apply to the things [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] and others have spoken of. Because nobody is getting any kind of leg up on anyone else in this way in most games--indeed, such behavior is just as liable to cause more problems for the player, because there is no consistent "doing X thing will definitely always mean the GM gives better chances of success." I like it when my players take a risk to do what they believe is truly right (especially if others might disagree about what is right!), but that sort of thing will almost always lead to greater danger and risk, not less!And we can turn this around further. What about the GM taking into account the stuff the players have told them? "I see Alice the Rogue is favoring social skills over infiltration skills and clearly prefers that over B&E...I should include a lock or two along the way, to 'Show a downside to their class, race, or equipment.' And Bob the Wizard is full of blasting spells, preferring to blow things up rather than figure them out...perhaps a magical effect that gets stronger when you throw spells at it could make things interesting, since that would challenge Bob's attitude toward magic." Yes, GMs are human and have biases and preferences, but they're also aware of what's going on and how people play. If the rules say--as I noted above for DW--that the GM should do things that reveal weaknesses as well as support strengths, how does that support the player "gaming" the GM? They may get advantages in some places, but they'll be getting disadvantages in others--and dishonestly reporting their own tastes and preferences solely to secure occasional benefit while getting occasional detriment as well sounds like a pretty bad deal.</blockquote>

Verification