De facto consensus

[Bradd W. Szonye]

A question for the God GM advocates: Do you have a personal policy of
honoring all conscientious and vehement player objections? Will you
accept proposals from other players so long as you're sure they fit into
your vision of the game?

I'm curious, because that's how I run my game. Our group has never
formalized the consensus policy, and I suspect some of them don't even
realize that's how I run my game. For all I know, they think of me as a
God GM by default, even though I run a de facto consensus game.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
A question for the God GM advocates: Do you have a personal policy of
honoring all conscientious and vehement player objections?

No, because a conscientious and vehement objection could still not
fit the world. I will apologize and say "sorry I can't accomodate you
there, but that's not the way things work." If possible, I'll try to
find something that WILL work which will produce a similar effect for
the player character, though.

Will you

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
accept proposals from other players so long as you're sure they fit into
your vision of the game?

Of course. Takes some weight off of me.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
A question for the God GM advocates: Do you have a personal policy of
honoring all conscientious and vehement player objections?

No, because a conscientious and vehement objection could still not fit
the world. I will apologize and say "sorry I can't accomodate you
there, but that's not the way things work."

I'm only asking about objections in the first question, not proposals.

If possible, I'll try to find something that WILL work which will
produce a similar effect for the player character, though.

Is that a yes, then?

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Will you accept proposals from other players so long as you're sure
they fit into your vision of the game?

Of course. Takes some weight off of me.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
A question for the God GM advocates: Do you have a personal policy of
honoring all conscientious and vehement player objections?

No, because a conscientious and vehement objection could still not fit
the world. I will apologize and say "sorry I can't accomodate you
there, but that's not the way things work."

I'm only asking about objections in the first question, not proposals.

I don't understand the difference. If you object to something, you
are -- de facto -- proposing that something else be done than whatever
you're objecting to. Yes?

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

If possible, I'll try to find something that WILL work which will
produce a similar effect for the player character, though.

Is that a yes, then?

Yes and no. I listen to any serious objection or proposal. Whether I
do what is desired depends on (A) whether it fits with my world, and
(B) whether it's going to tread on other players' toes or not.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
I'm only asking about objections in the first question, not proposals.

I don't understand the difference. If you object to something, you are
-- de facto -- proposing that something else be done than whatever
you're objecting to. Yes?

A proposal says, "I would rather do it /this/ way." An objection says,
"This doesn't work for me. Can we work out something different?"

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
I'm only asking about objections in the first question, not proposals.

I don't understand the difference. If you object to something, you are
-- de facto -- proposing that something else be done than whatever
you're objecting to. Yes?

A proposal says, "I would rather do it /this/ way." An objection says,
"This doesn't work for me. Can we work out something different?"

To me, they're identical in effect: both require that something be
changed in the game. The proposal has a concrete idea of what's to be
done; the objection has a concrete idea of what ISN'T to be done.
Either one may be impinging upon the way the world works, and so
either one may not be directly acceptable.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
A proposal says, "I would rather do it /this/ way." An objection says,
"This doesn't work for me. Can we work out something different?"

To me, they're identical in effect: both require that something be
changed in the game.

Nitpick: You're forgetting objections to new rules, which ask that
something /not/ be changed.

Post by Sea Wasp
The proposal has a concrete idea of what's to be done; the objection
has a concrete idea of what ISN'T to be done. Either one may be
impinging upon the way the world works, and so either one may not be
directly acceptable.

So what do you say to a player when refusing a conscientious, vehement
objection? Would you ask him to tolerate it, recommend that maybe he
should leave the game, or something different?

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
A proposal says, "I would rather do it /this/ way." An objection says,
"This doesn't work for me. Can we work out something different?"

To me, they're identical in effect: both require that something be
changed in the game.

Nitpick: You're forgetting objections to new rules, which ask that
something /not/ be changed.

Sorta. If it's my new rule, it's basically still in the same territory.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Sea Wasp
The proposal has a concrete idea of what's to be done; the objection
has a concrete idea of what ISN'T to be done. Either one may be
impinging upon the way the world works, and so either one may not be
directly acceptable.

So what do you say to a player when refusing a conscientious, vehement
objection? Would you ask him to tolerate it, recommend that maybe he
should leave the game, or something different?

I think I basically said previously: I apologize that I can't
accomodate that, but what they're asking goes against the way the
world works. If I can, I'll try to see if I can arrange something that
will fulfill the same needs as the request or objection would have
implied. If they really can't handle it, then they'd be best off to
leave. :(

[David Meadows]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
A question for the God GM advocates: Do you have a personal policy of
honoring all conscientious and vehement player objections? Will you
accept proposals from other players so long as you're sure they fit into
your vision of the game?

My answer to both questions is yes, or at least "yes, wherever possible".
And I suspect Sea Wasp is going to answer the same.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
I'm curious, because that's how I run my game. Our group has never
formalized the consensus policy, and I suspect some of them don't even
realize that's how I run my game. For all I know, they think of me as a
God GM by default, even though I run a de facto consensus game.

I've suspected, throughout this discussion, that you and I (and Sea Wasp)
don't actually run our games very differently to each other in practice. All
the bad points you attribute to the concept of god GM are points I simply
attribute to bad GMs. And all the difficulties Sea Wasp sees with your
consensus approach are difficulties I simply attribute to a bad playing
group.

Here is the key difference between yours and my mind-sets:

"Will you accept proposals from other players so long as you're sure they
fit into *YOUR* vision of the game?" [my emphasis]

Ultimately, this is what makes me "god" (albeit a listening god): it is *MY*
vision of the game. It is my creation, my universe, my responsibility. The
buck stops here.

You seem to have less of a personal attachment to the games you run. (I
don't mean that in any derogatory way; maybe I'm mis-stating it, but I can't
think of a better way of phrasing it at the moment.) It's more a matter of
attitude than conscious choice of playing style, I think. I'm *sure* that
attitude has to spill out in to how we run our games, but I'm equally sure
that the differences are a lot less than they appear when we argue about it.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by David Meadows

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
A question for the God GM advocates: Do you have a personal policy of
honoring all conscientious and vehement player objections? Will you
accept proposals from other players so long as you're sure they fit
into your vision of the game?

My answer to both questions is yes, or at least "yes, wherever
possible". And I suspect Sea Wasp is going to answer the same.

Frankly, I'm not sure how I would handle an intractible difference of
opinion, because it doesn't come up in my group. We work out a
compromise, or the less vehement side concedes the immediate argument
(perhaps with a promise to re-open the discussion between sessions). If
necessary, the GM breaks ties, but that's very rarely necessary.

Post by David Meadows

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
I'm curious, because that's how I run my game. Our group has never
formalized the consensus policy, and I suspect some of them don't
even realize that's how I run my game. For all I know, they think of
me as a God GM by default, even though I run a de facto consensus
game.

I've suspected, throughout this discussion, that you and I (and Sea
Wasp) don't actually run our games very differently to each other in
practice.

Likewise, which is why I started this thread. Not trying to claim other
folks' style as my own here, just trying to figure out how close we
really are.

Post by David Meadows
All the bad points you attribute to the concept of god GM are points I
simply attribute to bad GMs. And all the difficulties Sea Wasp sees
with your consensus approach are difficulties I simply attribute to a
bad playing group.

In my experience, all GMs and all players are bad sometimes. I think
some mindsets are more prone to badness than others, though, and in
particular I believe that the God GM meme encourages badness via
overinflated egos and self-deprecation.

Post by David Meadows
You seem to have less of a personal attachment to the games you run.
(I don't mean that in any derogatory way; maybe I'm mis-stating it,
but I can't think of a better way of phrasing it at the moment.)

That seems reasonable enough. For example, I care a lot about my
settings, but I know that all my planning isn't much use if the other
players don't enjoy it or don't care about the same things I do. In
those cases, I preserve as much of the spirit as I can while following
the players' lead.

In particular, I find the "MY setting" attitude foreign, something more
appropriate for novelists than for GMs (and even for novelists, it's not
necessarily true, as the Conan/Cthulhu setting shows).

Post by David Meadows
It's more a matter of attitude than conscious choice of playing style,
I think. I'm *sure* that attitude has to spill out in to how we run
our games, but I'm equally sure that the differences are a lot less
than they appear when we argue about it.

Probably.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
In particular, I find the "MY setting" attitude foreign, something more
appropriate for novelists than for GMs (and even for novelists, it's not
necessarily true, as the Conan/Cthulhu setting shows).

Well, I'm both, and the setting is used for both.

As far as the Conan/Cthulhu settings are concerned, there was no
attempt by Lovecraft to keep it all consistent; he was just writing
stories for money and nothing else; gaming has far greater constraints.

No one wrote stories in the Conan setting itself except Howard, until
he died. Not the same thing.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Oh no! It's Sea Wasp!

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
In particular, I find the "MY setting" attitude foreign, something more
appropriate for novelists than for GMs (and even for novelists, it's not
necessarily true, as the Conan/Cthulhu setting shows).

Well, I'm both, and the setting is used for both.
As far as the Conan/Cthulhu settings are concerned, there was no
attempt by Lovecraft to keep it all consistent; he was just writing
stories for money and nothing else; gaming has far greater constraints.
No one wrote stories in the Conan setting itself except Howard, until
he died. Not the same thing.

I think Bradd was referring to the fact (if it is a fact, I could be
misremembering) that the two of them - Howard and Lovecraft - decided
their settings were in fact one and the same, just in different time
periods.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Oh no! It's Sea Wasp!

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
In particular, I find the "MY setting" attitude foreign, something more
appropriate for novelists than for GMs (and even for novelists, it's not
necessarily true, as the Conan/Cthulhu setting shows).

Well, I'm both, and the setting is used for both.
As far as the Conan/Cthulhu settings are concerned, there was no
attempt by Lovecraft to keep it all consistent; he was just writing
stories for money and nothing else; gaming has far greater constraints.
No one wrote stories in the Conan setting itself except Howard, until
he died. Not the same thing.

I think Bradd was referring to the fact (if it is a fact, I could be
misremembering) that the two of them - Howard and Lovecraft - decided
their settings were in fact one and the same, just in different time
periods.

Well, they had things that connected, but the connections were so
tenuous in most cases that it was more a case of in-jokes and "nods"
than anything else. The fact is that if Cthuhu had met up with Conan,
something BAD would have happened to ol' Squid-face.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
In particular, I find the "MY setting" attitude foreign, something
more appropriate for novelists than for GMs (and even for novelists,
it's not necessarily true, as the Conan/Cthulhu setting shows).

... As far as the Conan/Cthulhu settings are concerned, there was no
attempt by Lovecraft to keep it all consistent; he was just writing
stories for money and nothing else; gaming has far greater
constraints .... No one wrote stories in the Conan setting itself
except Howard, until he died. Not the same thing.

I think Bradd was referring to the fact (if it is a fact, I could be
misremembering) that the two of them - Howard and Lovecraft - decided
their settings were in fact one and the same, just in different time
periods.

Partly that, but I was also referring to the many good pastiches and
homages that have carried the setting beyond the original authors'
visions. For a more recent example, consider the Stargate franchise. The
original creators don't care much for the TV series, but they have no
choice, since MGM (legally) owns the setting and characters. Frankly, I
think the original film was Hollywood crap with only a veneer of
intelligence; the TV series is much smarter and more engaging.

[Larry D. Hols]

Hallo,

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
A question for the God GM advocates: Do you have a personal policy of
honoring all conscientious and vehement player objections?

When in god mode: no.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Will you
accept proposals from other players so long as you're sure they fit into
your vision of the game?

When in god mode: I'm never sure that anything can fit because I've
spent all my time considering my material and how it fits together and I
haven't had time when a player offers something to do the same, nor am I
willing to spend the time in the future for that sort of consideration
as I'm spending it considering my own.
If a player is vehement and play can't proceed because of it, I
simply end that campaign then and there. They asked me to GM and I only
agreed to GM with complete authority, so with a player obstructing play,
the game contract is broken and I stop.

Larry

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
A question for the God GM advocates: Do you have a personal policy of
honoring all conscientious and vehement player objections? Will you
accept proposals from other players so long as you're sure they fit into
your vision of the game?
I'm curious, because that's how I run my game. Our group has never
formalized the consensus policy, and I suspect some of them don't even
realize that's how I run my game. For all I know, they think of me as a
God GM by default, even though I run a de facto consensus game.

Thanks for all the replies so far. I don't have time to respond them
them right now, but I appreciate the explanations. I'll get back to this
later.