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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6117475" data-attributes="member: 42582">That seems right to me.The thing I still find a bit weird is that in running this defence of someone whom (as far as I can tell) they've never met or RPGed with, they're quite happy to tell [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], with whom they're actually interacting, that he's a bad/whiny player who was wrecking the game for others.If I posted the story I mentioned in the post you quoted (and that I said a bit more about upthread - the GM who roadblocked our attempt to take initiative by interrogating a kobold), and some other poster replied saying I'd got the GM wrong and I was the bad player - I'd be a bit irritated. I mean, that GM was just terrible, and he himself conceded it, in effect, by offering to change styles when his players dropped his game.Now I agree my experience isn't evidence of what happened in Hussar's game; but for me it shows that Hussar's experience is one that I can easily imagine happening, and I can easiy imagine a situation in which the group is giving clear signals and the GM is not picking up on them. With the desert example, knowing nothing more of what actually took place than what Hussar has described, I do feel a bit sorry for the GM to at least this extent (and I think it relates to your point about the default mode of 3E D&D play): the game doesn't really give very clear advice on how much latitude to permit once you decide to relax strict application of the action resolution rules in pursuit of other pacing/story-related objectives.So of the two examples Hussar has given, I actually think the mercenary hire one is really a clearer example: because it's very obvious even going way back in D&D practice that its OK to reduce social interaction and hiring to a couple of dice rolls without breaking the game. Making the players actually play through those job interviews strikes me as a bit of 2nd ed era GMing, "roleplaying not rollplaying" dogma being imposed on the players by a high-minded GM. (And I have seen and suffered under such GMs.)Anyway, this has turned into a bit of an incoherent rant which also betrays my personal dislike for orthodox 2nd ed style. In the end I think you're right - and I also thank you for your generous comments about my posts. But I also feel Hussar has been a bit unfairly dogpiled - I see people talk about bad/whiny players all the time, but as soon as someone posts about bad GMing they're the bad player. Are GMs really all perfect and immune from criticism?</blockquote>

Verification