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="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5389153" data-attributes="member: 18280">"Enough" is a slippery concept.  Tautilogically, this is true, but it is equally true to say "The players haven't responded enough to the hooks presented", or "The players are not proactive enough", or "The players are not able to make decisions" and be equally accurate.  Either way, the players are either not doing their job, or they're doing it wrong.But both paragraphs -- yours and mine -- are equally meaningless for two reasons.  First, what is "enough" is left undefined, so that one can always then say, "Ah, but if you had done enough things would be better."  Secondly, both paragraphs somehow imagine that what happens during actual game play is controlled exclusively from one side of the screen.Both are, essentially, attempts to cop out on responsibility.(I'm not going to quote and respond to all of your additional paraphrases of the same highly questionable point.  Suffice it to say that I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.)As long as the GM has players who want to play his game, he is justified in running any game he wants.  That defines "enough".As long as a player is still welcome in a game, he is justified in running his character any way he wants.  That defines "enough".A wise GM doesn't wait until every player is gone before considering his game; a wise player doesn't wait until he is booted from every game before he considers his playing.  That defines making a change before you fail to have "enough".If Bob is GMing, and Marcy and Joe want a different game, Bob absolutely does not need to "step down"; he can keep running a game for Sue and John. If Marcy then runs a game more like what she and Joe want, perhaps Bob, Sue, and/or John will also want to play in that game.If, for some reason, Sue and John can only play in one game, then either Bob's or Marcy's gets them, depending upon which is closer to what Sue and John want.The only reason Bob should "step down" is because he is tired of GMing.That you personally do not like sandbox games is immaterial.Yes.  "Not necessarily" was the point of what you quoted and responded to.  I apologize if that wasn't clear, but either way I am pleased that you drew the same conclusion.So, if a player wants to do something, the GM slaps him down until the GM says its okay?It's been said before, but I'll say it again:  The same way the DM controls the pace.  Do something.  Kick in the door.  Pull the lever.But, whatever you do, don't whine that taking more time is being perhaps fun, but Bob doing something isn't fun when Bob decides he wants to exercise some control over the pacing of the game.  Bob is a player, too, and Bob should not be disenfranchised because you want to dicker around....or even because the GM wants to dicker around.As long as the GM has players who want to play his game, he is justified in running any game he wants.As long as a player is still welcome in a game, he is justified in running his character any way he wants.A wise GM doesn't wait until every player is gone before considering his game; a wise player doesn't wait until he is booted from every game before he considers his playing.Suffice it to say that I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.RC</blockquote>

Verification