Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Don Durito" data-source="post: 8341186" data-attributes="member: 6687260">I've mostly stayed out of this side-argument because it's been going on for twenty years and it bores me at this point.But I do feel the need to point out that the example I gave of lack of GM leadership was not a social situation outide of the game.&nbsp; It's not as if it was about the GM interverning in an argument about who was supposed to bring the snacks.It was about how the GM should react to an in-character action, which, if treated like any other action, is going to lead to social tension.&nbsp; To me this is entirely within the GM remit of a traditional game.&nbsp; It make's sense to me that it's within the GM's responsibility to react to such a a situation first because it is the GM who has to resolve the action.&nbsp; If a player decides to murder a civilian and the GM lets them without questioning how it fits into the tone of the game or wishes of other players about how the game should go, then the situation has already escalated further.&nbsp; If another player should then object the conversation now includes not just whether an action should happen but whether an action should be undone, and not just whether another player is on the same page as the rest of the group but also whether the GM is.Also, if the players don't know each other very well it may be that rather than objecting another player thinks &quot;Oh.&nbsp; I didn't think this was the kind of game where we were murdering innocent people.&nbsp; But apparently it is.&nbsp; I guess that was my mistake.&nbsp; I'll quietly make my apologies for next week in order to let this group carry on how they like.&quot;&nbsp; (If a player has done this, and the GM is also apparently ok, then it's going to start looking like weight of numbers are against you.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Don Durito, post: 8341186, member: 6687260"] I've mostly stayed out of this side-argument because it's been going on for twenty years and it bores me at this point. But I do feel the need to point out that the example I gave of lack of GM leadership was not a social situation outide of the game. It's not as if it was about the GM interverning in an argument about who was supposed to bring the snacks. It was about how the GM should react to an in-character action, which, if treated like any other action, is going to lead to social tension. To me this is entirely within the GM remit of a traditional game. It make's sense to me that it's within the GM's responsibility to react to such a a situation first because it is the GM who has to resolve the action. If a player decides to murder a civilian and the GM lets them without questioning how it fits into the tone of the game or wishes of other players about how the game should go, then the situation has already escalated further. If another player should then object the conversation now includes not just whether an action should happen but whether an action should be undone, and not just whether another player is on the same page as the rest of the group but also whether the GM is. Also, if the players don't know each other very well it may be that rather than objecting another player thinks "Oh. I didn't think this was the kind of game where we were murdering innocent people. But apparently it is. I guess that was my mistake. I'll quietly make my apologies for next week in order to let this group carry on how they like." (If a player has done this, and the GM is also apparently ok, then it's going to start looking like weight of numbers are against you.) [/QUOTE]

Verification