Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6108891" data-attributes="member: 6681948">That method means that he GM is forced to assess the priorities of the players.  He must decide, or example, whether the PC's accurately assess the combat ability of the potential hirelings, and whether they determine hat one of them is unsavoury (perhaps a wanted criminal, perhaps just someone who won't have much loyalty to the PC's) and whether, having made those assessments, they would consider the combat ability of the unsavoury fellow to outweigh his less desirable attributes and hire him (1) or that his con's outweigh his pro's, so he his application is declined (2).(1) and be accused of a Gotcha if something bad results from those unavoury attributes(2) and be accused of a Gotcha if those inferior combat abilities result in th selected hires not getting the job done.So the GM can avoid being dumped on by the players only if he delivers the precise best case scenario the players desire each and every time, or he makes the players assess the options for themselves.Which two statements?  I will assume the two stated as dual possibilities.  I do not believe that these are subjective.  I agee that you (and Hussar) do not acknowledge or accept these possibilities.'schrodinger's' is the term I wanted to use, and I settled on using 'morphic' for consistency with prior posts.If a ravine suddenly appears, should the player not have an argument that ravines are typically visible from some distance, and perhaps he should have had the option not to ride towards the ravine?  If there are two of us, and one rolls a 1 and the other a 20, does the ravine exist for only one of us?  What if I want there to be a ravine - can I make a Nature check (or whatever) to cause one to spring into existence, conveniently where I wanted it to be?  Can my opponent roll an opposed check against me to prevent there being this ravine that would be to my benefit and his detriment?I don't see any of your players leaping to support you either.  "No evidence" is not the same as "evidence".  I also see no one else who was involved in Hussar's game clarifying the views of the other players or the GM.  That doesn't prove anything, other than that we have only one participant's pespective to go on.  It is no more valid to say the lack of anyone stating you ae a bad GM supports the view that you are not, than it would be to say the fact no one is posting comments on your DMing indicates you have bored them all right out of the hobby, if not to an early grave, so they are not here to comment.So if the PC's are not omniscient - they must know the relevance, short and long term, of each and every action they take, this is a "railroad".  In a sandbox game, the players have no idea what may or may  not be relevant, nor how they might tie together.  The fact they do not know these things does not, in my view, suggest a classically defind "railroad".I think someone who is likely to get shirty when the GM does not accept his off the cuff strategy resolves any and all issues, known and unknown, in precisely he manner the player envisions, with no possibility of any complications, seems quite likely to be a whiner.  I also think that classifying anyhing that does not accord with your preferred approach as Bad GMing is prety whiny.  That in no way means I think everyone who plays differently is a whiner.  It is the manner in which those differences are addressed, not the fact that they exist, which would establish someone as a whiner.</blockquote>

Verification