Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6101320" data-attributes="member: 42582">Perhaps, yes. More information is needed.For instance, for many people Wagner is an acquired taste. If I want to play Wagner to accompany my sessions (there's some heroic fantasy music there!) and you can't stand Wagner for whatever reason, do I cut it back to only one-third of the session? Or do I not play it at all, and find some other music that we can agree on (or perhaps agree to no music)? It's very hard to have a blanket rule, but probably the &quot;play Wagner for only a third of the session&quot; rule isn't the best form of compromise here. After all, there's plenty of other music I like too.Likewise with this stuff. Is it going to take 5 or 10 minutes to resolve, and in that time I can check over my spell list, or my equipment list, or take a modest pleasure in observing your play? Sounds fine. Is it going to take an hour or two in a four hour session? That sounds less fine to me. I turned up to enjoy myself, not just watch you enjoy yourself.I'm not advocating for a universal decision rule. Heck, outside of certain unusually formal contexts (eg maybe some clubs with rules about games being open to all comers) I don't see the need for a decision rule at all.What I talked about in the post you quoted wasn't a collective decision procedure for scene-skipping. It was about what counts as good or bad GMing in certain playstyles. For me, a GM who knows that all the group is keen to get to City B, and who strings it out with a desert crossing that is of interest to less than all the group, is not a GM I want to play with. I don't care how interesting the prepared desert encounters are, or how interested the relevant subset of the group is. That's a GM who's not trying to keep the whole group involved when the means of doing so is obvious and ready-to-hand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6101320, member: 42582"] Perhaps, yes. More information is needed. For instance, for many people Wagner is an acquired taste. If I want to play Wagner to accompany my sessions (there's some heroic fantasy music there!) and you can't stand Wagner for whatever reason, do I cut it back to only one-third of the session? Or do I not play it at all, and find some other music that we can agree on (or perhaps agree to no music)? It's very hard to have a blanket rule, but probably the "play Wagner for only a third of the session" rule isn't the best form of compromise here. After all, there's plenty of other music I like too. Likewise with this stuff. Is it going to take 5 or 10 minutes to resolve, and in that time I can check over my spell list, or my equipment list, or take a modest pleasure in observing your play? Sounds fine. Is it going to take an hour or two in a four hour session? That sounds less fine to me. I turned up to enjoy myself, not just watch you enjoy yourself. I'm not advocating for a universal decision rule. Heck, outside of certain unusually formal contexts (eg maybe some clubs with rules about games being open to all comers) I don't see the need for a decision rule at all. What I talked about in the post you quoted wasn't a collective decision procedure for scene-skipping. It was about what counts as good or bad GMing in certain playstyles. For me, a GM who knows that all the group is keen to get to City B, and who strings it out with a desert crossing that is of interest to less than all the group, is not a GM I want to play with. I don't care how interesting the prepared desert encounters are, or how interested the relevant subset of the group is. That's a GM who's not trying to keep the whole group involved [I]when the means of doing so is obvious and ready-to-hand[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification