Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 2945191" data-attributes="member: 30001">Just wanted to point out that we agree (before I got into disagreeing).  What we disagree on is whether or not this is occuring in Quas' game.Don't need proof - we already agree - in fact AFAICT you're just restating what I said (and being patronizing in the process).  "Studies on sociology" - don't you think there are probably a lot of those?  Are they all relevant to the topic?Probably - but one of my points was that it was a mistake IMO to continue to DM and play the game.  So now not only is the player hiding behind the "I'm playing my character" but possibly the DM is hiding behind the "I'm just DMing" thing instead of stopping the game and solving the problem, where, IMO, it's deserves to be solved.Well, I certainly wouldn't be surprised by the play-style of 10-year-olds.  I think I would have a blast gaming with 10-year-olds (at least once).  If I got angry or felt the need to call them immature, IMO you'd be justified in wondering who it was that needed to grow up.I'm not saying that Quas was naive in this situation, but I AM saying that he probably needs to view this as an issue of expectations.  Viewing this as entirely a situation of immaturity really negates the expectations of the players in the group, which IMO is a mistake.  Someone who wants to hack and slash is not immature.  Of course there are examples of immaturity on the part of players within Quas' scenarios, but there's also just instances of differing expectations.  Since the DM knows his campaign world, and really is in charge of it's direction, IMO it falls much more to the DM to sort these situations out.  Google up patronizing, IMO it would be far more relevant and educational.  It's not clear in this situation that there's any violation of a "social contract" unless you define social contract to mean "what the DM wants to happen".      Now I suspect we have nothing in common philosophically.  Management theory is like eating food off of the floor - it's not all bad for you but I wouldn't recommend it.Only because you don't understand my definitions AFAICT.  Allowing free-roam means allowing PCs to get killed.  I wouldn't recommend this to Quas though - I think it contradicts his gaming style.  I'm not quoting anyone in this case, and I was trying to find terms that would capture the differences that I saw in Quas' actions vs. his expectations.  I didn't choose the terms to sound important, but just to sum-up differences.  Those terms weren't used "out of context", you're just trying to apply a context that you understand to what I was saying - which is mixing up two different issues.I can agree with you that this definitely happened in at least some of what Quas was describing.  However, if a player were to threaten another player at my gaming table, I think we'd all stop the game and get things sorted out.  Acting immaturely is really beyond the game at that point - and continuing to play, to the point that you "destroy the campaign" IMO is not a good way of handling what IMO is a non-game issue.DMs in Quas' situation can't control everything that everyone does at their table - but they CAN control their campaigns.  They can set expectations, and stop the game when it breaks those table rules.  For example - in my game there is no PvP without both parties agreeing.  I don't watch PvP, continue to play the game, let it "destroy the campaign" and then wonder afterwards what happened.  Well - actually - I did - at one point.  But then I starting figuring out things about players expectations and it made these situations a lot better.  But IMO you can't solve a problem when you're not asking the right question.  And so far, with all due respect to Quas, who was having a problem that I've had in the past, I didn't think he was asking (implicitly) the right question.</blockquote>

Verification