Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6101430" data-attributes="member: 177">My assertion is, basically, that it is difficult or impossible to brand it as &quot;bad GMing&quot; based on style-consideration alone.&nbsp; Aside from Hussar's memory being fragmentary on the topic, he's not exactly an impartial or omniscient observer.&nbsp; The devil, as they say, is in the details.Can you construct a situation in which it is a bad idea to run that scene?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; Is that construction equivalent to Hussar's experience?&nbsp; I don't think we can say.Correction - the GM had failed to go where Hussar felt the action should be.&nbsp; Which isn't exactly the same thing.&nbsp; Note, for example that Hussar can't remember why they wanted to go to the city.&nbsp; For all we know, some of what they *really* wanted was in that desert.&nbsp; Maybe the desert was going to be busywork encounters intended to eat through party resources, which is often kind of boring.&nbsp; But, maybe there were bits relevant to their actual goals in that desert.&nbsp; We'll never know, and I'm against flatly calling something bad GMing on that basis.How about the *evidentiary* standard upon which pass judgements?&nbsp; In the vein of my statement above, about how discussions can get polarized, there's a strong tendency to jump to conclusions - we paint with broad brushes, especially in the negative, making for a fast trot to label things as &quot;Bad GMing&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6101430, member: 177"] My assertion is, basically, that it is difficult or impossible to brand it as "bad GMing" based on style-consideration alone. Aside from Hussar's memory being fragmentary on the topic, he's not exactly an impartial or omniscient observer. The devil, as they say, is in the details. Can you construct a situation in which it is a bad idea to run that scene? Sure. Is that construction equivalent to Hussar's experience? I don't think we can say. Correction - the GM had failed to go where Hussar felt the action should be. Which isn't exactly the same thing. Note, for example that Hussar can't remember why they wanted to go to the city. For all we know, some of what they *really* wanted was in that desert. Maybe the desert was going to be busywork encounters intended to eat through party resources, which is often kind of boring. But, maybe there were bits relevant to their actual goals in that desert. We'll never know, and I'm against flatly calling something bad GMing on that basis. How about the *evidentiary* standard upon which pass judgements? In the vein of my statement above, about how discussions can get polarized, there's a strong tendency to jump to conclusions - we paint with broad brushes, especially in the negative, making for a fast trot to label things as "Bad GMing". [/QUOTE]

Verification