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="Umbran" data-source="post: 6112849" data-attributes="member: 177">There's only so many hours in the day, dude.  There is a common misconception that failure to speak against X implies agreement with X.  I suggest you not fall into that particular trap.  Reading too far into what someone *doesn't* say is asking for trouble.Then, I haven't been clear.  I am not against a simple polite suggestion.  I am against excessive expectation, the idea that the GM is somehow obligated to take you up on it; or wrongity-wrong, with wrong sauce, or a bad GM, if they don't do as you ask.  I'm not going to dig back through an 80 page thread to see if I did.  But, how about this - in the Deadlands session I ran Tuesday, I started with a fast-forward over boring investigation that was apt to be a foregone conclusion, and skipped over boring travel scenes four times.  Happy?And my point is, "Don't assume that just because you initially don't want to do it, it constitutes a roadblock." I believe I've already addressed this, but I'll try a different formulation.  The character's goals and the player's goals are not generally equivalent.  The character's goal is not just an in-game location.  The characters may have been told that their goals may be achieved at a given location, but the players should be open to the idea that the scenario that meets *their* goals may not be so simple.Thus, it is okay to ask, "Hey, GM, if this is going to be a purposeless monster-slog, can we just skip it, please?  I'm just not into that today?"  But, be ready for the response, "Well, there's more to it than a monster-slog, though that may not be obvious at start," or, "Well, the others are kinda into this, so I'm going ahead with it."</blockquote>

Verification