Started by Double_J, January 01, 2012, 07:15:58 PM
Quote from: Double_J on January 05, 2012, 06:12:39 PM@stefoid:Could that not be achieved using virtually any system
Quote from: stefoid on January 05, 2012, 08:34:56 PMQuote from: Double_J on January 05, 2012, 06:12:39 PM@stefoid:Could that not be achieved using virtually any systemHows that working for you
QuoteCould that not be achieved using virtually any system, by using some sort of (properly articulated) "primer", perhaps based off of something like Chris's "same page tool"? (snip to different response, same topic)...the answer is - or at least should be - refinement of presentation. (or am I just being stubborn?)
QuoteHmm. Well, I can pump out material all day long; but without meaningful engagement by the players, then there's no point -- I might as well just go write a novel.In order for me to generate material that is interesting for me to watch, then yes, I do need meaningful player feedback. In order for me to have fun, I need for the players to show some initiative -- it's kinda the point. Otherwise if just feels like I'm leading them by the nose.Please, continue
QuoteBTW, please describe these warts of mine that you derived from my posts -- I'm interested (I rarely turn down an opportunity for self improvement; thus I welcome constructive criticism).
Quote from: Double_J on January 01, 2012, 07:15:58 PMFred also refuses to "just do it" -- ever (well, at least not without sulking). Every course of action must be meticulously planned, to the point of trying to establish a trembling hand perfect equilibrium -- an equilibrium that must exist at all times (obviously with continuous refinement). And nobody is allowed to muck up his plans. When confronted on this matter, he responds with a tightly-constructed defense as to why it's the only reasonable approach/solution. (oh, btw -- I've even started to delve in to formal Game Theory in an effort to try to find solutions ... but there's a lot out there, and I've only got so much time and energy).
Quote from: Callan S. on January 09, 2012, 04:02:34 PMThe thing is, if your playing under a traditional game structure with the golden rule and all that, how can using those rules in any particular way be wrong? It creates a certain relativist environment, where dropping a heap of gold on players feet is relatively equal to using GM fiat to capture, torture and try and berate players into certain use of their PC/the spoken fiction they speak.Something to try might be house ruling away your capacity to do such a GM fiat (and the house rule also nulls the golden rule, so you can't use it to return that GM fiat ability mid game). By removing such an ability, it might make gameplay different when you can't draw upon that sort of GM fiat maul at any moment. Might feel more exciting because of having less control over the whole event (it becomes more like everyones in the same shopping trolley together, even the GM, zooming downhill in directions highly uncontrolled!)
QuoteThat being said -- after further discussions with some of my other players (most notably Bob and Jim), I have finally come to the determination that Fred and I cannot simultaneously occupy the same game table.(snip) It is what it is. I could try to re-engage; but I'm skeptical. You make sense; but at this point, I'm just so drained that I don't think that I'd be up for it right now.
QuoteSo, in Bob's effort to get along and still be able to explore his character, he let his character do his thing off-screen -- but was forced to bring in another character just so that he would have something to do at the table.
QuoteAs for "house ruling away your capacity to do such a GM fiat" .... with someone like Fred, I think that this would be disastrous. The presence of GM fiat capacity is one of the few things that keep him from taking control of the entire game (i.e., from everybody). I think that I've reached the point where I believe that someone that is that much of a control freak needs to be left sulking (with constructive discussion afterward). YMMV.
QuoteI'm still struggling a bit with this one. I would much appreciate a little more articulation here (if you don't mind).
Quote1) I'm not sure I'm fully with you on the relativism issue. I see where you're coming from, but I think it's apples-and-oranges, and therefore not a fully legitimate comparison -- one is a passive/indirect control, where the other is an active/direct control. And the reason that this makes a difference is at the point of the player(s) making decisions, and thus a matter of player agency.
QuoteSure, some groups may be fine with this type of dynamic; however, even these groups will run in to problems when the inanimate authority is silent on an issue.
QuoteAlso, things get interpreted in different ways by different people; interests conflict; etc.