Why I walked away from tonight's game

[Jeff Heikkinen]

So there's our party - a fairly standard group of mainly third level
D&D3 characters - just coming back from a battle in an underground
temple of sorts. We have accomplished our mission (reached the end of a
chapter, as the DM put it last session - it's pretty clear he has a
particular story he wants to tell, which is not my favorite aproach but
one I can live with as long as the rails aren't *too* obvious). We are
deep, deep underground, beat up, low on spells and our leader is dead -
all any of us want to do now is get the hell back to the surface.

We left two animals in a cave nearby, a fairly large rough-hewn chamber
with multiple exits. One of the two animals is a talking bird, a crow
or grackel or something unpleasant like that, which has been acting as
our guide. Unfortunately for us, it speaks only Orcish and possibly
Draconic as far as we can tell, and the only character in the party who
could have talked to it was he of the heroic self-sacrifice the previous
session.

(I had been under the distinct impression it had *understood* my
character, speaking Common, perfectly well in the previous session,
despite its inability to reply. I admit I could have been mistaken
about that. The clues were ambiguous - something, I must mention, that
I found myself saying about that game rather often.)

I should say a few words about how we got here. I have mentioned that
the bird, which was sort of on loan from an NPC on whose behalf we were
acting, is our guide. There is no actual map - we made noises about
making one last session and the DM blew us off, admitting in so many
words that *he* hadn't made one. He simply described a long (about a
day's travel) trip underground with many confusing twists and turns,
which he felt none of us (surface-dwellers all) would have had a hope of
keeping a reliable record of. Which was plausible enough, the way he
described it, so no-one argued. The bird had simply told us which turns
to take, and like anyone who has any business sitting behind a DM
screen, he abstracted the whole thing into only a few minutes of play,
if that. This seemed fine at the time.

At any rate, the fate of our sole Orcish-speaking party member (none of
us knew Draconic at all) presents obvious problems for getting back to
the surface, but we figure they're surmountable. Once we get to the
chamber where we left the animals, first, my sorcerer tries simply
asking it to show us the way. No dice. I was a bit surprised by this,
but as I said above, I *could* have been mistaken about its ability to
understand my character in the previous session, so I didn't make a big
deal of it.

Okay, no problem, we just switch to plan B. This was to simply take off
through the same exit we had originally entered this room through.
Hopefully the bird would get the hint and start taking the lead, which
after all, *was* its whole purpose in being there.

(As a side note - the DM, who occasionally pretends to be dense just to
get us to clarify something - this irritates me but I do it too so I
can't complain too much - initially interpreted this as back to the
temple we had just had the battle in, but we quickly corrected this. I
found that this bothered me a lot more than it usually does for some
reason.

Also, it *had* occurred to me that the bird may have a different agenda,
NPCs who are out to screw us being quite common in that game. But it
soon became a moot point, anyway.)

He ruled that we had no idea which exit we had originally come in
through.

No dice roll or anything, just a brute fact - "you have no idea which
exit it was", in exactly those words.

Wow.

My suspension of disbeleif, always somewhat strained in that game
anyway, finally popped like a cheap lightbulb.

I literally could no longer imagine the situation or what my character
would do in it - I found this quite literally unbelievable. His
gameworld has always seemed to me to show some seams, but until now I
could grit my teeth and look the other way, but now it was literally not
possible for me to do any form of in-character thinking whatsoever.
(Short of playing out a character going mad, I suppose, which could
actually be really cool, but that was equally at odds with my view of
*this* particular character.)

I mean, look. Our characters have been lost in the woods, or nearly so,
a number of times. I didn't care for that at first but it actually
makes sense, especially considering that at the time, we had no-one with
The Skill Formerly Known As Wilderness Lore. Getting lost in the woods
ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO PEOPLE. But a) we have since added a cleric of a
nature deity to the mix, and she has ranks in the relevant skill, and b)
more importantly, this is NOT being out in the wilds, it is a situation
with a finite number of visually distinguishable ways to go, to say
nothing of this thing people have called "a sense of direction".
Somewhat like being in a large central room in a building you aren't
familiar with. I would bet against anyone here having *ever* not known
which way they originally came in, in a situation like that. Especially
in a situation where your life may depend on it.

If anyone here does remember it happening to them, I submit that it's
because such things are SO RARE AS TO BE MEMORABLE, not because they
happen a lot. Certainly, in a group of FIVE people, one of whom is
there in part to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening,
SOMEONE is going to have a clue.

There have been a *lot* of cases of what I see as this particular DM
failing to credit the characters with any intelligence. This has been a
tension point in this game from the word go for me. I think the root
cause is a failure on his part to appreciate and make any allowances for
bandwidth limitations. You *can't* explicitly mention every little
thing your character does that might turn out to be relevant later, but
he takes a much harder line than I would when it comes to the "fail to
mention something, and you didn't do it" idea.

(I'm not sure why - normally I would assume it was a refusal to retcon
taken a little too far, but not with him. Retconning used to be my
number one problem with his game, until I complained enough times and he
- to his credit - stopped doing it. But I don't think his newfound
reluctance to retcon goes quite THAT far, and in any case, he was doing
milder versions of this back when he WAS constantly retconning.)

So, I calmly packed up my stuff and walked out. He came downstairs to
lock the door behind me. I asked him which of my games he would prefer
for next week, he gave a brief ambiguous reply that made me think he
might be considering dropping out of them. And that was that.

Discuss :-).

[Halzebier]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
He ruled that we had no idea which exit we had originally come in
through.
No dice roll or anything, just a brute fact - "you have no idea which
exit it was", in exactly those words.

Technically, the DC might have been so high that no skill roll (Intuit
Direction or its successor Survival) would have saved you.

However, this doesn't sound as if DC or anything like that was on his
mind...

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
I mean, look. Our characters have been lost in the woods, or nearly so,
a number of times. I didn't care for that at first but it actually
makes sense, especially considering that at the time, we had no-one with
The Skill Formerly Known As Wilderness Lore. Getting lost in the woods
ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO PEOPLE. But a) we have since added a cleric of a
nature deity to the mix, and she has ranks in the relevant skill, and b)
more importantly, this is NOT being out in the wilds, it is a situation
with a finite number of visually distinguishable ways to go, to say
nothing of this thing people have called "a sense of direction".
Somewhat like being in a large central room in a building you aren't
familiar with. I would bet against anyone here having *ever* not known
which way they originally came in, in a situation like that. Especially
in a situation where your life may depend on it.

I think that large caves can easily be as confusing as a forest (the
Carlsbad Caverns convinced me of that). But if that were the case, he
should have mentioned it (the guide notwithstanding). If you can't
even bind your shoelaces without losing your way, you'd take
precautions - not necessarily a map, but certainly marks on the wall,
putting down your lamp in the direction you had been heading etc.

Abstracting events should not be used to srcew the players, in my
opinion. This will just make them insist on playing things out, to the
detriment of the game.

Provided you still want to play in his game, I suggest talking about
the game on the level of player and GM goals:

The sort of heavy-handed railroading you describe is usually much more
acceptable when the GM is up-front about it rather than trying to find
a lame in-game explanation.

"Okay, guys, I see that your PCs want to head back to the surface.
Now, I'd rather have them continue because I was kinda aiming for a
long, arduous trek where morale and resources slowly deplete. Can you
come up with any explanations for why your PCs would want or have to
continue? Help me out here!"

Regards,

Hal

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Halzebier, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Halzebier

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
He ruled that we had no idea which exit we had originally come in
through.
No dice roll or anything, just a brute fact - "you have no idea which
exit it was", in exactly those words.

Technically, the DC might have been so high that no skill roll (Intuit
Direction or its successor Survival) would have saved you.
However, this doesn't sound as if DC or anything like that was on his
mind...

To be honest, I'm not sure what was. Maybe it was railroading, maybe it
was just how he honestly saw things playing out. But yeah, I'm pretty
sure DC wasn't even in the building.

The death of our erstwhile leader, timed as it was to occur when the
player had been making noises about leaving the game due to increasing
demands on his time in real life, I think may have been worked out with
the player ahead of time. I'm not sure, I haven't asked either of them
- until tonight it was just an amusing thing to speculate about. I
wouldn't put it past him to have picked the bird's rather odd linguistic
limitations knowing this was going to happen. (Orcish only, when its
master was a primarily Draconic-speaking kobald? I said it might speak
Draconic too but that was just speculation, there was no "on-screen"
evidence for this).

(My we've-been-lost-in-the-woods-before-but-this-is-ridiculous
digression snipped.)

Post by Halzebier
I think that large caves can easily be as confusing as a forest (the
Carlsbad Caverns convinced me of that). But if that were the case, he
should have mentioned it (the guide notwithstanding).

Well, as I tried to make clear, he *did* mention this for the route as a
whole. And it made perfect sense that we wouldn't have been able to
retrace our steps all the way back. But I don't think it was even
vaguely reasonable to extrapolate that to an inability to determine
which entrance we had used to get into that particular *room*.

Post by Halzebier
If you can't
even bind your shoelaces without losing your way, you'd take
precautions - not necessarily a map, but certainly marks on the wall,
putting down your lamp in the direction you had been heading etc.

YES, exactly what I was getting at. Mind if I quote this if the issue
comes up in future discussions with him?

Post by Halzebier
Abstracting events should not be used to srcew the players, in my
opinion. This will just make them insist on playing things out, to the
detriment of the game.

I, for one, have cooperated to date with only minor grumbling, since at
least the story was a reasonably interesting one. I do think he is
motivated at least as much by wanting to keep the game going at a
reasonable pace as by wanting to stick to his storyline.

Post by Halzebier
Provided you still want to play in his game,

I don't. A number of irritations about it have been gnawing at me for
some time - I mentioned some of them in the original post - and this is
really the straw that broke the camel's back.

Post by Halzebier
I suggest talking about
The sort of heavy-handed railroading you describe is usually much more
acceptable when the GM is up-front about it rather than trying to find
a lame in-game explanation.

I'm not even sure it *was* heavy-handed railroading, though I'm at a
loss to imagine what the heck else it could have been. Whatever his
faults as a DM, he is FIENDISHLY clever in many respects - the
railroading usually shows at least some subtlety. I get the impression,
for example, that he has used Schroedinger's NPC and similar techniques
a number of times, but only when I stand back and look at the big
picture; I'm almost never sure that the guy I'm talking to RIGHT NOW
would have showed up (with different flavor text) if we had made a
different decision.

Post by Halzebier
"Okay, guys, I see that your PCs want to head back to the surface.
Now, I'd rather have them continue because I was kinda aiming for a
long, arduous trek where morale and resources slowly deplete. Can you
come up with any explanations for why your PCs would want or have to
continue? Help me out here!"

Can't really see him doing that, but that's not to say it's a bad idea.

But in this case, it was clear that we had accomplished what we set out
to do and had no further reason at all to stay. Furthermore, we had a
specific problem on the surface waiting for us, which the DM had said
the day before the session that he was specifically preparing for us to
deal with. Every in- and out-of-game indication I could see was that he
wanted us to deal with that problem next, so any railroading to keep the
plot on track would have been the *opposite* of what actually happened,
I would have thought.

I think we just honestly had a really bad assumption clash about what
would have "really" happened. The thing is, it was so bad that my SOD,
which as I said has been borderline almost from the word go, was
completely and, as far as I can see, irrevocably destroyed.

[Halzebier]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
YES, exactly what I was getting at. Mind if I quote this if the issue
comes up in future discussions with him?

You're welcome, though I'd suggest quoting the wider context, but
that's really up to you.

Post by Jeff Heikkinen

Post by Halzebier
Provided you still want to play in his game,

I don't. A number of irritations about it have been gnawing at me for
some time - I mentioned some of them in the original post - and this is
really the straw that broke the camel's back.

This raises the question of what you wish to accomplish by quoting me
or further addressing the issue. A few thoughts:

(1) Vent your frustration.

While this may seem good for your blood pressure, it might easily
evolve into a big fight and do just the opposite.

(2) Salvage the relationship out-of-game.

Maybe you share a circle of friends or just move in the same circles
(e.g. the local hobby shop). In that case, parting on speaking terms
is a good idea and probably requires giving him *some* reason for
leaving (though not necessarily the true one - sometimes, it's best to
show some mercy).

(3) Help him to improve his game.

Whether for his own sake or that of the group, a bit of constructive
criticism can be productive. However, I'd strongly suggest giving both
him and yourself a few weeks to cool off before tackling such a
potenially touchy subject. YMMV.

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
I think we just honestly had a really bad assumption clash about what
would have "really" happened. The thing is, it was so bad that my SOD,
which as I said has been borderline almost from the word go, was
completely and, as far as I can see, irrevocably destroyed.

Assumption clash, especially regarding a matter which is neither
world-shaking nor likely to crop up again anytime soon, seems like it
should be recoverable. But then, I wasn't there, so I can't really
judge the situation properly.

Regards,

Hal

[Warren J. Dew]

Halzebier responds to Jeff Heikkinen:

I think that large caves can easily be as confusing as a
forest (the Carlsbad Caverns convinced me of that). But if
that were the case, he should have mentioned it (the guide
notwithstanding).

Actually, he had mentioned it. At least, that's how I interpret the following
from Jeff's original post (looked up from Google as it hasn't made it to my
news server):

There is no actual map - we made noises about making one
last session and the DM blew us off, admitting in so many
words that *he* hadn't made one. He simply described a
long (about a day's travel) trip underground with many
confusing twists and turns, which he felt none of us
(surface-dwellers all) would have had a hope of keeping a
reliable record of. Which was plausible enough, the way
he described it, so no-one argued.

In other words, without the ability to communicate with the guide, the
characters ought to expect to be lost. Certainly that's what I'd expect to
happen. I'd expect to have forgotten most of the places where one might have
to remember which way to take after a full day's travel following a guide, and
I don't see anything that would necessarily make the way home from this
particular location more memorable. I'd only expect to remember the way we
took forward from this location, after we left the guide behind.

Assumption clash, especially regarding a matter which is
neither world-shaking nor likely to crop up again anytime
soon, seems like it should be recoverable.

I'd agree with that, though in my experience it requires the player to be
flexible rather than the gamesmaster: you really have to regard the
gamesmaster's assumptions about the game world as more valid than any one
player's.

However, I don't think this is just a case of assumption clash. Note the
following from earlier in Jeff's post:

(reached the end of a chapter, as the DM put it last
session - it's pretty clear he has a particular story he
wants to tell, which is not my favorite aproach but
one I can live with as long as the rails aren't *too*
obvious)

It sounds to me like the kind of game the gamesmaster is running - with a
"particular story he wants to tell" - isn't really the kind of game that Jeff
wants to be playing. It sounds to me, given Jeff's description of this as "the
straw that broke the camel's back", like there has been tension between what
Jeff wanted to play and what this gamesmaster wanted to run for a while now,
and the tension finally rose to the breaking point.

Maybe you share a circle of friends or just move in the
same circles (e.g. the local hobby shop). In that case,
parting on speaking terms is a good idea and probably
requires giving him *some* reason for leaving (though not
necessarily the true one - sometimes, it's best to show
some mercy).

In this case, though, it seems to me the truth ought to be fine - "I understand
you want to run your game in a particular style, and that style is perfectly
valid, but I'm afraid my personal preferences are too narrow to let me enjoy
playing in that style of game."


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by Warren J. Dew
There is no actual map - we made noises about making one
last session and the DM blew us off, admitting in so many
words that *he* hadn't made one. He simply described a
long (about a day's travel) trip underground with many
confusing twists and turns, which he felt none of us
(surface-dwellers all) would have had a hope of keeping a
reliable record of. Which was plausible enough, the way
he described it, so no-one argued.
In other words, without the ability to communicate with the guide, the
characters ought to expect to be lost. Certainly that's what I'd expect to
happen. I'd expect to have forgotten most of the places where one might have
to remember which way to take after a full day's travel following a guide, and
I don't see anything that would necessarily make the way home from this
particular location more memorable. I'd only expect to remember the way we
took forward from this location, after we left the guide behind.

I think that the GM point-blank said they had no clue was rather
bogus, though - surely they could at least try to find traces of thier
passage into the cavern through one of the tunnels?

[Warren J. Dew]

Rupert Boleyn posts, in part:

I think that the GM point-blank said they had no clue was
rather bogus, though - surely they could at least try to
find traces of thier passage into the cavern through one
of the tunnels?

Did they try? To me, "you have no clue" doesn't imply "you won't be able to
find any clues, even if you try", but I can see how it can be read that way. I
don't remember exactly what the original post said on that subject.

I can even see a gamesmaster who would prefer to abstract out the situation if
he knew it was very unlikely or impossible that the players would find any
clues, though in this case, I agree it seems more reasonable to allow the
players to play through a search in detail if that's what they all want to do.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Peter Knutsen]

Warren J. Dew wrote:
[...]

Post by Warren J. Dew
In other words, without the ability to communicate with the guide, the
characters ought to expect to be lost. Certainly that's what I'd expect to
happen. I'd expect to have forgotten most of the places where one might have
to remember which way to take after a full day's travel following a guide, and

I tend strongly to "just follow the guide" in such RL situations,
without really paying attention to turns and twists. But of course I
*always* have reason to trust whoever the guide is (and that the guide
will remain alive at least long enough to guide me back to where I
came from). If I knew I was in an adventuring situation, I'd be quite
paranoid.

[...]

Post by Warren J. Dew
In this case, though, it seems to me the truth ought to be fine - "I understand
you want to run your game in a particular style, and that style is perfectly
valid, but I'm afraid my personal preferences are too narrow to let me enjoy
playing in that style of game."

I don't know about Jeff, but I'd never describe my preferences as
"narrow" or accept others describing them that way. The way I see it,
it's Jeff's GM who is narrow, and indeed all Dramatists are.

A Dramatist wants to tell a particular story. No other story will
satisfy him. (The "heroes" *have* to win).

Whereas a Simulationist would be happy with any of a number of
different "stories" (final outcomes), as long as they live up to
certain plausibility and organicity standards.

Post by Warren J. Dew
Warren J. Dew

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Peter Knutsen, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by Warren J. Dew
In other words, without the ability to communicate with the guide, the
characters ought to expect to be lost. Certainly that's what I'd expect to
happen. I'd expect to have forgotten most of the places where one might have
to remember which way to take after a full day's travel following a guide, and

I tend strongly to "just follow the guide" in such RL situations,
without really paying attention to turns and twists. But of course I
*always* have reason to trust whoever the guide is (and that the guide
will remain alive at least long enough to guide me back to where I
came from). If I knew I was in an adventuring situation, I'd be quite
paranoid.
[...]

Post by Warren J. Dew
In this case, though, it seems to me the truth ought to be fine - "I understand
you want to run your game in a particular style, and that style is perfectly
valid, but I'm afraid my personal preferences are too narrow to let me enjoy
playing in that style of game."

I don't know about Jeff, but I'd never describe my preferences as
"narrow" or accept others describing them that way. The way I see it,
it's Jeff's GM who is narrow, and indeed all Dramatists are.
A Dramatist wants to tell a particular story. No other story will
satisfy him. (The "heroes" *have* to win).
Whereas a Simulationist would be happy with any of a number of
different "stories" (final outcomes), as long as they live up to
certain plausibility and organicity standards.

FWIW, I would put this guy smack in the middle of the triangle, though I
realize that my descriptions of him sound extremely Dramatist. Just as
many of my problems with his game have to do with disagreements over
what would "really" happen, which is something two equally commited
Simulationists could still disagree on, if they went in with different
assumptions (as he and I certainly do).

[Courtney Campbell]

Post by Peter Knutsen
I don't know about Jeff, but I'd never describe my preferences as
"narrow" or accept others describing them that way. The way I see it,
it's Jeff's GM who is narrow, and indeed all Dramatists are.
A Dramatist wants to tell a particular story. No other story will
satisfy him. (The "heroes" *have* to win).

I was under the impression that a Dramatist was interested in taking a
role, and acting it out, and watching drama between characters. A focus
on say role-playing, and intereaction. In fact, I don't associate the
TFM with _any_ type of requirement about what the result of most stories
are. . .

Post by Peter Knutsen
Whereas a Simulationist would be happy with any of a number of
different "stories" (final outcomes), as long as they live up to
certain plausibility and organicity standards.

Post by Warren J. Dew
Warren J. Dew

-Campbell

[Warren J. Dew]

Courtney Campbell posts, in part:

I was under the impression that a Dramatist was
interested in taking a role, and acting it out,
and watching drama between characters.

As used in r.g.f.a, the term typically means a view of roleplaying that sees it
as fundamentally a story telling activity. Some gamesmasters who take this
attitude - though far from all - do indeed have the ending largely planned.

While even that can work with the right group of players, it's an extreme that
many players dislike. Since Peter dislikes the "game as story" aesthetic, he
naturally prefers to paint all story oriented gaming as using this somewhat
unpopular extreme.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Courtney Campbell]

Post by Courtney Campbell
I was under the impression that a Dramatist was
interested in taking a role, and acting it out,
and watching drama between characters.
As used in r.g.f.a, the term typically means a view of roleplaying that sees it
as fundamentally a story telling activity. Some gamesmasters who take this
attitude - though far from all - do indeed have the ending largely planned.
While even that can work with the right group of players, it's an extreme that
many players dislike. Since Peter dislikes the "game as story" aesthetic, he
naturally prefers to paint all story oriented gaming as using this somewhat
unpopular extreme.

Oh. Well, like our group uses FUDGE, and there are rarely any kinds of
rolls at all, and it's 99% just NPC interaction, and there is a plot;
but we have a golden rule about the player characters being totally in
charge of their actions. I sort of run it with NPC's going around and
doing things which affect the players stated intrests and desires of
their character. I make them pick goals (using the list from rolemaster)
and philospohical beliefs on a scale(atheist<->religion(...) etc.) that
helps them play out their char.

An ending that must happen however. . . Well, the NPC's are going to do
what they're going to do, and it's just up to the PC's what they do
about it - It's even up to them which NPC's they want to interact with.

I just never saw the TFM as a descriptor of what a game must contain, so
much as a style of play enjoyed. (Broken down loosely into, do you like
to move pieces around and mess with tatics, do you like charts and such
that detail systems that the PC's interact with, or do you like talking
IC, and acting/improptu theater) The idea that the TFM would imply
anything beyond a descriptor of what you enjoy in the play of an RPG
just seems silly. to me. IMHO.

Post by Courtney Campbell
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

-Campbell
Who thought the point of Jargon was to increase clairty and speed of
communication in specialized areas.

[Warren J. Dew]

Peter Knutsen posts, in part:

I don't know about Jeff, but I'd never describe my
preferences as "narrow" ...

Perhaps you wouldn't, but I'm sure others would. In fact, I'd guess a majority
of r.g.f.* posters would describe your preferences as narrow.

From me, it isn't be an insult. I certainly think my own preferences are
narrow: it's only a small minority of the roleplaying population that likes
the specialized kind of game I prefer. To please a broad cross section of
gamers rather than a narrow subset, you have to run a campaign that appeals to
the least common denominator, which isn't something I personally am interested
in doing.

Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by Warren J. Dew
From me, it isn't be an insult. I certainly think my own preferences
are narrow: it's only a small minority of the roleplaying population
that likes the specialized kind of game I prefer. To please a broad
cross section of gamers rather than a narrow subset, you have to run a
campaign that appeals to the least common denominator, which isn't
something I personally am interested in doing.

Are you aware of how arrogant that sounds?

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Robert Scott Clark, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Warren J. Dew
From me, it isn't be an insult. I certainly think my own preferences
are narrow: it's only a small minority of the roleplaying population
that likes the specialized kind of game I prefer. To please a broad
cross section of gamers rather than a narrow subset, you have to run a
campaign that appeals to the least common denominator, which isn't
something I personally am interested in doing.

Are you aware of how arrogant that sounds?

I suspect he is, but that doesn't mean it's not true, and for one
appreciate the honesty.

Doesn't change the fact that "narrow" is not something most people are
comfortable hearing in reference to their gaming (or any other kind of)
preferences, though.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Robert Scott Clark, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Warren J. Dew
From me, it isn't be an insult. I certainly think my own preferences
are narrow: it's only a small minority of the roleplaying population
that likes the specialized kind of game I prefer. To please a broad
cross section of gamers rather than a narrow subset, you have to run a
campaign that appeals to the least common denominator, which isn't
something I personally am interested in doing.

Are you aware of how arrogant that sounds?

I suspect he is, but that doesn't mean it's not true, and for one
appreciate the honesty.
Doesn't change the fact that "narrow" is not something most people are
comfortable hearing in reference to their gaming (or any other kind of)
preferences, though.

I just object to the implication that narrow is necessarily more refined or
better in some way, because "lowest common denominator" certainly implies a
certain inferiority to me.

I'm a big fan of analogy, and for years I worked as a babysitter, and when
it comes to taste in food, children have very narrow taste, but that does
not translate to them being gourmets. Most of the time they only eat hot
dogs and mac-n-cheese.

[David Meadows]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Robert Scott Clark, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Warren J. Dew
From me, it isn't be an insult. I certainly think my own preferences
are narrow: it's only a small minority of the roleplaying population
that likes the specialized kind of game I prefer. To please a broad
cross section of gamers rather than a narrow subset, you have to run a
campaign that appeals to the least common denominator, which isn't
something I personally am interested in doing.

Are you aware of how arrogant that sounds?

I suspect he is, but that doesn't mean it's not true, and for one
appreciate the honesty.
Doesn't change the fact that "narrow" is not something most people are
comfortable hearing in reference to their gaming (or any other kind of)
preferences, though.

I just object to the implication that narrow is necessarily more refined or
better in some way, because "lowest common denominator" certainly implies a
certain inferiority to me.

Ah, it's one of those conflicting-definitions problems. In which case,
please ignore my response to your previous post.

[Wayne Shaw]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Doesn't change the fact that "narrow" is not something most people are
comfortable hearing in reference to their gaming (or any other kind of)
preferences, though.

Hmmm. Not really sure of that, when it's just a reference to taste.
I have a relatively narrow set of food tastes, for example, and while
I sometimes wish it wasn't so, I don't see it as a particularly a
character flaw, so why take it badly?

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Wayne Shaw, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Doesn't change the fact that "narrow" is not something most people are
comfortable hearing in reference to their gaming (or any other kind of)
preferences, though.

Hmmm. Not really sure of that, when it's just a reference to taste.
I have a relatively narrow set of food tastes, for example, and while
I sometimes wish it wasn't so, I don't see it as a particularly a
character flaw, so why take it badly?

I might very well describe my own preferences that way, but I'd still
bristle if someone else did so. (Partly because such people usually go
on to get a significant part of them *wrong*.)

[James O'Rance]

Post by Wayne Shaw
Hmmm. Not really sure of that, when it's just a reference to taste.
I have a relatively narrow set of food tastes, for example, and while
I sometimes wish it wasn't so, I don't see it as a particularly a
character flaw, so why take it badly?

Your narrow tastes can be restrictive to other people, in the right
situation.

Narrow food tastes are generally not a problem - if someone only wants
pizza, that doesn't stop everybody else from ordering in Thai or
whatever. Only rarely would you be forcing other people to choose from
your own limited range of food options.

A narrow range of preferences in RPGs is different. I've often been
characterised as narrow in this regard - certainly I have very
particuar preferences, and I freely admit that it's -hard- to convince
me to play a game that I don't want to. This means that other people
feel I hold the group hostage ("We can't play GURPS if we want James
to play") which is not a nice situation for anyone. So I try to be
more flexible.

--
james o'rance
http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamer

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by James O'Rance

Post by Wayne Shaw
Hmmm. Not really sure of that, when it's just a reference to taste.
I have a relatively narrow set of food tastes, for example, and while
I sometimes wish it wasn't so, I don't see it as a particularly a
character flaw, so why take it badly?

Your narrow tastes can be restrictive to other people, in the right
situation.
Narrow food tastes are generally not a problem - if someone only wants
pizza, that doesn't stop everybody else from ordering in Thai or
whatever. Only rarely would you be forcing other people to choose from
your own limited range of food options.
A narrow range of preferences in RPGs is different. I've often been
characterised as narrow in this regard - certainly I have very
particuar preferences, and I freely admit that it's -hard- to convince
me to play a game that I don't want to. This means that other people
feel I hold the group hostage ("We can't play GURPS if we want James
to play") which is not a nice situation for anyone. So I try to be
more flexible.

This is one reason I value flexability, but I'd go a step further. When
dealing with multiple people, too limited a taste lowers overall quality.
Imagine selecting music for a party where one person only likes country
and western, one only likes female vocalists, and one only like a capella
singing. Even in this contrived situation where no one is in direct
contradiction we're still limited to selecting from such a small variety
that we aren't going to get the best in any category.

I think the big difference is between "I like x, y, and z" and "I ONLY
like x, y, and z".

[Warren J. Dew]

James O'Rance comments that narrow tastes in food are not as much of a problem
as narrow tastes in gaming, as the latter can make it seem like one person
"hold[ing] the group hostage".

I have the opposite experience, but perhaps it's because I tend to prefer long
term campaigns, while I prefer varied groups for dinner parties.

With a long term campaign, there is time for the playing group to gradually
self select for a group of players with similar tastes. As long as the tastes
are sufficiently similar, it doesn't matter if they are narrow.

In contrast, half my friends I cannot invite to dinner parties, because they
have conflicting food tastes or dietary restrictions I cannot accomodate (e.g.,
strict kosher).


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Wayne Shaw]

Post by James O'Rance

Post by Wayne Shaw
Hmmm. Not really sure of that, when it's just a reference to taste.
I have a relatively narrow set of food tastes, for example, and while
I sometimes wish it wasn't so, I don't see it as a particularly a
character flaw, so why take it badly?

Your narrow tastes can be restrictive to other people, in the right
situation.
Narrow food tastes are generally not a problem - if someone only wants
pizza, that doesn't stop everybody else from ordering in Thai or
whatever. Only rarely would you be forcing other people to choose from
your own limited range of food options.
A narrow range of preferences in RPGs is different. I've often been
characterised as narrow in this regard - certainly I have very
particuar preferences, and I freely admit that it's -hard- to convince
me to play a game that I don't want to. This means that other people
feel I hold the group hostage ("We can't play GURPS if we want James
to play") which is not a nice situation for anyone. So I try to be
more flexible.

While I can see that, I think there's a difference between saying
someone has a narrow set of tastes, and saying they (passively or
actively) enforce them on others.

[David Meadows]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Warren J. Dew
From me, it isn't be an insult. I certainly think my own preferences
are narrow: it's only a small minority of the roleplaying population
that likes the specialized kind of game I prefer. To please a broad
cross section of gamers rather than a narrow subset, you have to run a
campaign that appeals to the least common denominator, which isn't
something I personally am interested in doing.

Are you aware of how arrogant that sounds?

Didn't sound arrogant to me. He wants to run a game a particular way and not
make it appeal to every possible gamer. What's wrong with that?

Very few GMs run their games as a public service. I believe most of us (GMs)
want to enjoy our games. And that means you run the games *you* want to run
the way *you* want to run them. You don't try to please every possible gamer
at the expense of playing how you want to play.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Warren J. Dew, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Halzebier
I think that large caves can easily be as confusing as a
forest (the Carlsbad Caverns convinced me of that). But if
that were the case, he should have mentioned it (the guide
notwithstanding).
Actually, he had mentioned it. At least, that's how I interpret the following
from Jeff's original post (looked up from Google as it hasn't made it to my
There is no actual map - we made noises about making one
last session and the DM blew us off, admitting in so many
words that *he* hadn't made one. He simply described a
long (about a day's travel) trip underground with many
confusing twists and turns, which he felt none of us
(surface-dwellers all) would have had a hope of keeping a
reliable record of. Which was plausible enough, the way
he described it, so no-one argued.
In other words, without the ability to communicate with the guide, the
characters ought to expect to be lost.

As I've acknowledged at least twice - in the long run, absolutely yes,
but that does not equate to not knowing what entrance we used to get
into that particular room only ten minutes or so earlier. That was the
part that bothered me.

Post by Halzebier
Certainly that's what I'd expect to
happen. I'd expect to have forgotten most of the places where one might have
to remember which way to take after a full day's travel following a guide, and
I don't see anything that would necessarily make the way home from this
particular location more memorable.

What, no differences in the color or patters of the rock? The shape or
slope of the entrance? No signs of OUR OWN passage only about ten
minutes earlier, given that any cave is liable to have significant mud
and/or dust? (To say nothing of bat and rat droppings, considering the
number of such creatures necessary for the underground ecologies typical
of D&D.)

The only excuse that was given was "it was dark," coming not from the
DM, but from a player whose character had LOWLIGHT VISION, but that's a
DIFFERENT rant (forgetting your abilities being a fairly common problem
with a few of the players in his and my groups)... at any rate, I don't
see anything that would make not knowing that basic piece of information
plausible to me.

Also, one other thing that may not be obvious from my earlier posts - we
knew going in that someone would have to sacrifice themselves when we
got to our destination, due to the nature of the problem that awaited us
there. Both the party's then-leader and my own character had made their
peace with the gods and were quite prepared to do it, in fact, the two
characters (who didn't especially like one another) nearly came to blows
over which one was going to go through with it! In the end, I "lost"
and therefore survived. So, the possibility of losing our ability to
communicate with the guide was very much in our minds. That is partly
why it was important that I, and it turns out at least one other player
as well, thought the bird could understand me.

(And if anyone suspects that my willingness to sacrifice my own
character had partly to do with my OOC dissatisfaction with the game,
they would be close to correct. I wasn't consciously aware of it until
a few days after the session, but I have no doubt that it was part of
why it felt right to have my character willing to take such a step,
quite aside from the paladin complex my decidedly-not-a-paladin
character had from the start.)

Post by Halzebier
Assumption clash, especially regarding a matter which is
neither world-shaking nor likely to crop up again anytime
soon, seems like it should be recoverable.
I'd agree with that, though in my experience it requires the player to be
flexible rather than the gamesmaster: you really have to regard the
gamesmaster's assumptions about the game world as more valid than any one
player's.

Yeah, I have to admit this may be part of the problem. I have great
difficulty with that. See the end of this post for something that may
be of great interest here.

Post by Halzebier
However, I don't think this is just a case of assumption clash. Note the
(reached the end of a chapter, as the DM put it last
session - it's pretty clear he has a particular story he
wants to tell, which is not my favorite aproach but
one I can live with as long as the rails aren't *too*
obvious)
It sounds to me like the kind of game the gamesmaster is running - with a
"particular story he wants to tell" - isn't really the kind of game that Jeff
wants to be playing.

Yes and no. As I said, if the rails don't have neon lights and a
marching band announcing their presence, and the story is reasonably
interesting, I'm willing to live with it though it takes the occasional
gritting of teeth.

In any event, I have since learned that we can rule out railoading being
the issue in this particular case. After I left, the party almost
immediately found a solution to the problem that was nearly as simple as
either of mine, and went on to have a very meaty session dealing with a
problem that they couldn't have possibly had any interaction with at all
had they stayed underground. So as I suspected, the DM had no agenda of
keeping us underground - quite the opposite.

The way it was described to me (in an e-mail from the DM, no less)
seemed instead to be symptomatic of a LESSER and possibly related
problem I have with his game - constantly building in problems with a
single, very specific, solution in mind, and rejecting any proposed
solutions that differ from it no matter how reasonable it may appear.
(For my own games, I prefer to simply build in problems, full stop, and
see what the players come up with :-).) In this case especially, I
still think my solution made more sense than the one he turned out to
have in mind - I think he was just a little too attached to "his" way of
solving the problem.

Too many things in that game felt like the all-too-common computer game
thing of getting stuck on a badly designed "puzzle" with no or ambiguous
clues, and trying things almost at random until something works, with no
real rationale apparent to the players for why that particular solution
worked and the previous 1d3 didn't. That's undoubtedly how I would have
felt had I stayed, which I'll admit is a lesser problem, but still a
significant one.

Post by Halzebier
It sounds to me, given Jeff's description of this as "the
straw that broke the camel's back", like there has been tension between what
Jeff wanted to play and what this gamesmaster wanted to run for a while now,
and the tension finally rose to the breaking point.
Maybe you share a circle of friends or just move in the
same circles (e.g. the local hobby shop). In that case,
parting on speaking terms is a good idea and probably
requires giving him *some* reason for leaving (though not
necessarily the true one - sometimes, it's best to show
some mercy).
In this case, though, it seems to me the truth ought to be fine - "I understand
you want to run your game in a particular style, and that style is perfectly
valid, but I'm afraid my personal preferences are too narrow to let me enjoy
playing in that style of game."

Apropos of the previous two paragraphs, this seems to be the right place
to post the e-mail I sent to the Yahoo group for this particular game,
announcing my exit. As you may guess from reading it, there were other
issues which I barely touched on in my previous messages here.

*********************

Hi all;

No hard feelings, I hope, but this message marks my departure from
[that DM]'s game. Briefly and somewhat diplomatically, I have had
severe suspension-of-disbelief problems in that game almost from the
word go; the assumption clash that prompted my rather unceremonious
departure last night would not have been so bad by itself, but it was
symptomatic of what I see as an ongoing problem. Basically, the world
[DM] runs is so at odds with my worldview and experiences as to make
no sense to me and, short of playing a madman (which I *have*
considered, but simply haven't the energy for at the moment), this
makes it impossible to think in character.

Why not try to get it changed, instead of leaving? After all, [DM]
has been very responsive to my concerns in the past (the retconning
thing, for example) and this is very much to his credit. Because
nothing short of asking him to change the entire feel and attitude of
his world would do, and I suspect that would destroy [DM's] *own*
enjoyment of the game. It's his game, not mine. There are things I
don't enjoy about it that seem to be fundamental to it. Something has
to give, and I have no business trying to convince [DM] it should be
him.

It occurs to me that my leaving is probably a good thing for everyone
else anyway. Besides the usual benefits of getting rid of an unhappy
player, it means that those weeks when I have a paper hanging over my
head or something are no longer ANY reason whatsoever for the rest of
you not to get together and game! I have been feeling rather bad
about how often I have had to say "sorry, snowed under with
assignments" lately; this gives everyone a workaround.

I want to make it perfectly clear that [DM] is still welcome at my
gaming table; I have no problems with continuing to have him as a
player.

I'll send my character sheet to [DM] as soon as I can find a reasonable
electronic format for it (which may end up just consisting of scanning
the paper one).

Have a good weekend, everyone.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by Warren J. Dew
I'd agree with that, though in my experience it requires the player to
be flexible rather than the gamesmaster: you really have to regard
the gamesmaster's assumptions about the game world as more valid than
any one player's.

Sounds to me like it's all of the players, not just one.

And fuck the gamemaster, he's no more important than anyone else.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Robert Scott Clark, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Warren J. Dew
I'd agree with that, though in my experience it requires the player to
be flexible rather than the gamesmaster: you really have to regard
the gamesmaster's assumptions about the game world as more valid than
any one player's.

Sounds to me like it's all of the players, not just one.
And fuck the gamemaster, he's no more important than anyone else.

Heh. This is, as you know, heresy in some circles, but as someone who
has been in the position of running a game and having to talk a player
OUT of the "DM is God" attitude, despite that I would have been the one
benefiting if she had maintained it, I can certainly see where you're
coming from.

[James O'Rance]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Heh. This is, as you know, heresy in some circles, but as someone who
has been in the position of running a game and having to talk a player
OUT of the "DM is God" attitude, despite that I would have been the one
benefiting if she had maintained it, I can certainly see where you're
coming from.

The GM has almost unlimited power in many games, which is why the "GM
is God" attitude is partially true.

However, this only remains true if the GM has a captive audience. If
there are other people prepared to GM, or simply other activities that
the players can do, then God will find players emigrating from his
universe (something that we can't do in RL ;).

--
james o'rance
http://www.geocities.com/dragon-dreamer

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by James O'Rance
The GM has almost unlimited power in many games, which is why the "GM
is God" attitude is partially true.
However, this only remains true if the GM has a captive audience. If
there are other people prepared to GM, or simply other activities that
the players can do, then God will find players emigrating from his
universe (something that we can't do in RL ;).

Definitely.

[Warren J. Dew]

James O'Rance posts, in part:

then God will find players emigrating from his
universe (something that we can't do in RL ;).

Sure you can.

You just can't change your mind afterwards.

Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by James O'Rance
then God will find players emigrating from his
universe (something that we can't do in RL ;).
Sure you can.
You just can't change your mind afterwards.

Says you.



Ed Chauvin IV

[Wayne Shaw]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:57:20 -0500, Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by James O'Rance
then God will find players emigrating from his
universe (something that we can't do in RL ;).
Sure you can.
You just can't change your mind afterwards.

Says you.

Well, if you can, folks have been real slow to report back.

[Russell Wallace]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:57:20 -0500, Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by James O'Rance
then God will find players emigrating from his
universe (something that we can't do in RL ;).
Sure you can.
You just can't change your mind afterwards.

Says you.

Depends on which of the customer service reps you ask. Some say you
can't, some say you can but it entails rolling up a new character and
going through the whole level grind from scratch.

[David Meadows]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Warren J. Dew
I'd agree with that, though in my experience it requires the player to
be flexible rather than the gamesmaster: you really have to regard
the gamesmaster's assumptions about the game world as more valid than
any one player's.

Sounds to me like it's all of the players, not just one.
And fuck the gamemaster, he's no more important than anyone else.

You mean apart from the fact that most games (in my experience, all games)
can still run if a player doesn't turn up but can't run if the GM doesn't
turn up?

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by David Meadows

Post by Robert Scott Clark
And fuck the gamemaster, he's no more important than anyone else.

You mean apart from the fact that most games (in my experience, all
games) can still run if a player doesn't turn up but can't run if the
GM doesn't turn up?

There are a number of reasons for that, and some of them have nothing to
do with game "ownership." Sure, somebody might not feel comfortable
picking up another GM's game, because they don't know the setting well
enough to play the GM roles. And a GM might not want other players
extending his setting for reasons ranging from campaign secrets to pure
arrogance. But the biggest barrier to pick-up games IME has nothing to
do with that. GMing *anything* on short notice is tough, because typical
play styles require a lot of GM preparation.

In other words: If the GM comes down with the flu on Thursday morning,
it doesn't matter much whether he shows up to the game on Saturday.
Either way, you'll have an unprepared GM, which is much more significant
than world ownership issues IME.

[David Meadows]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by David Meadows

Post by Robert Scott Clark
And fuck the gamemaster, he's no more important than anyone else.

You mean apart from the fact that most games (in my experience, all
games) can still run if a player doesn't turn up but can't run if the
GM doesn't turn up?

There are a number of reasons for that, and some of them have nothing to
do with game "ownership." Sure, somebody might not feel comfortable
picking up another GM's game, because they don't know the setting well
enough to play the GM roles. And a GM might not want other players
extending his setting for reasons ranging from campaign secrets to pure
arrogance. But the biggest barrier to pick-up games IME has nothing to
do with that. GMing *anything* on short notice is tough, because typical
play styles require a lot of GM preparation.
In other words: If the GM comes down with the flu on Thursday morning,
it doesn't matter much whether he shows up to the game on Saturday.
Either way, you'll have an unprepared GM, which is much more significant
than world ownership issues IME.

A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any particular game
the GM is more important than any one of the players because one is
dispensable and the other isn't (for whatever reason).

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by David Meadows

... If the GM comes down with the flu on Thursday morning, it doesn't
matter much whether he shows up to the game on Saturday. Either way,
you'll have an unprepared GM, which is much more significant than
world ownership issues IME.

A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any
particular game the GM is more important than any one of the players
because one is dispensable and the other isn't (for whatever reason).

I wouldn't call that "more important"; it's more accurate to say that a
reasonably well-prepared GM is a "necessary but insufficient" element of
a good role-playing session. There's a subtle but important difference.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:57:49 -0000, "David Meadows"

Post by David Meadows
A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any particular game
the GM is more important than any one of the players because one is
dispensable and the other isn't (for whatever reason).

Actually the GM isn't indispensible.

[David Meadows]

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:57:49 -0000, "David Meadows"

Post by David Meadows
A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any particular game
the GM is more important than any one of the players because one is
dispensable and the other isn't (for whatever reason).

Actually the GM isn't indispensible.

Hmm. As I've just been arguing on another thread, without the GM's knowledge
you can't still play the game. Not the *same* game, anyway. So for any one
particular game the GM is indispensable. At least, in my game he is.

(Actually, that's got me curious. I'll ask for my players' views at our next
session and see if their take on it is the same as mine.)

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by David Meadows

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Actually the GM isn't indispensible.

Hmm. As I've just been arguing on another thread, without the GM's
knowledge you can't still play the game. Not the *same* game, anyway.

Rupert is referring to the fact that you don't really need a GM, period.
And as for the other thread, the stuff you mentioned is only important
if the other GM actually plans to return to the game. And even then, it
really isn't a big deal so long as the two GMs communicate somehow.

Post by David Meadows
So for any one particular game the GM is indispensable. At least, in
my game he is.

That's why it's on the list of "myths": Yes, a lot of people run their
games like that. No, you don't *need* to run a game like that. No,
people who do it differently aren't doing it "wrong." And no, your
players probably wouldn't care what the plot/NPC/dungeon was "supposed"
to be.

Post by David Meadows
(Actually, that's got me curious. I'll ask for my players' views at
our next session and see if their take on it is the same as mine.)

It may well be, since this is a *very* common myth.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by David Meadows
A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any
particular game the GM is more important than any one of the players

Only if you falsely believe that a mediocre game is better than no game.

Post by David Meadows
because one is dispensable and the other isn't (for whatever reason).

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows
A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any
particular game the GM is more important than any one of the players

Only if you falsely believe that a mediocre game is better than no game.

What about those of us who honestly believe that a mediocre game is
better than no game? While I do think better to quit than to suffer a
bad game, what's wrong with a mediocre game?

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Bradd W. Szonye, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows
A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any
particular game the GM is more important than any one of the players

Only if you falsely believe that a mediocre game is better than no game.

What about those of us who honestly believe that a mediocre game is
better than no game? While I do think better to quit than to suffer a
bad game, what's wrong with a mediocre game?

Better things to do with one's time.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Bradd W. Szonye, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows
A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any
particular game the GM is more important than any one of the players

Only if you falsely believe that a mediocre game is better than no game.

What about those of us who honestly believe that a mediocre game is
better than no game? While I do think better to quit than to suffer a
bad game, what's wrong with a mediocre game?

Better things to do with one's time.

Playing in a mediocre RPG *is* a better thing to do with my time, in
part because the quality of the game per se is only part of the quality
of the game session. (For example, playing D&D with my old college
friends is a lot of fun even when the game itself isn't so hot.)

Now, we could get the same group of people together to play poker, but
that wouldn't be any more fun, and we're less likely to get the group
together in the first place.

This suggests a few related myths:

The quality of the gameplay is the most important part of a play session.
(a) Meta-gaming is unacceptable.
(b) Non-game-related table talk is unacceptable.
(c) Disrupting the gameplay is grounds for dismissal.

The quality of the gameplay is unimportant (i.e., "It's just a game").

This first set of myths is untrue because the gameplay itself is
secondary for many people (including me). Yes, it's important, and I
won't play in a game that actively frustrates me, but I happily tolerate
many poor game-related decisions for social reasons.

The second myth is untrue because the quality of the gameplay obviously
is paramount for some players. Many people take their hobbies very
seriously, even if they're nominally for entertainment. (In other words,
entertainment is not always a trivial pursuit.)

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows
A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any
particular game the GM is more important than any one of the players

Only if you falsely believe that a mediocre game is better than no game.

What about those of us who honestly believe that a mediocre game is
better than no game?

Being honest and wrong are not mutually exclusive.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
While I do think better to quit than to suffer a
bad game, what's wrong with a mediocre game?

Opportunity cost.

[Leszek Karlik]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 01:04:32 GMT, Robert Scott Clark
<***@mindspring.com> disseminated foul capitalist propaganda:

[...]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
While I do think better to quit than to suffer a
bad game, what's wrong with a mediocre game?

Opportunity cost.

There are also other profits from a roleplaying game than having a
good game. For example, I prefer a mediocre game on a saturday
afternoon to playing a computer game, even if it'sa very good one,
because I can spend time with my friends then. RPGs are a social
game.

Leslie

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by Leszek Karlik
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 01:04:32 GMT, Robert Scott Clark
[...]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
While I do think better to quit than to suffer a
bad game, what's wrong with a mediocre game?

Opportunity cost.

There are also other profits from a roleplaying game than having a
good game. For example, I prefer a mediocre game on a saturday
afternoon to playing a computer game, even if it'sa very good one,
because I can spend time with my friends then. RPGs are a social
game.

Well, for me computer games are social activites. As are a dozen other
things more enjoyable than a mediocre game.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
What about those of us who honestly believe that a mediocre game is
better than no game?

Being honest and wrong are not mutually exclusive.

If the mediocre game is better than the alternatives (including the
non-RPG alternatives), there's nothing wrong about it.

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
While I do think better to quit than to suffer a
bad game, what's wrong with a mediocre game?

Opportunity cost.

Since the quality of the gameplay is not the most important element of
playing RPGs for me, there is no opportunity lost. Maximizing the
quality of the game itself also has an opportunity cost.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
What about those of us who honestly believe that a mediocre game is
better than no game?

Being honest and wrong are not mutually exclusive.

If the mediocre game is better than the alternatives (including the
non-RPG alternatives),

Then you have my sympathies.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
there's nothing wrong about it.

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
While I do think better to quit than to suffer a
bad game, what's wrong with a mediocre game?

Opportunity cost.

Since the quality of the gameplay is not the most important element of
playing RPGs for me,

But ther quality of gameplay is the only part that requires you to be
playing the game instead of doing something else that provides all of the
other important elements but is also intrinsically more enjoyable than
the mediocre gameplay.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
there is no opportunity lost. Maximizing the
quality of the game itself also has an opportunity cost.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
If the mediocre game is better than the alternatives (including the
non-RPG alternatives) ....

Then you have my sympathies.

No condolences necessary, if I think a mediocre RPG is more fun than the
alternatives. That doesn't necessarily imply that my options are
limited, just that I enjoy mediocre RPGs.

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Since the quality of the gameplay is not the most important element of
playing RPGs for me ....

But ther quality of gameplay is the only part that requires you to be
playing the game instead of doing something else that provides all of
the other important elements but is also intrinsically more enjoyable
than the mediocre gameplay.

You assume that this "something else" exists, which is not necessarily
true. Nor is the lack of a better alternative "wrong" or "bad."

To make this more obvious: When he heard people complaining about sex,
my college roommate would reply, "Funny -- the worst blowjob I ever got
was still pretty damn good." For some folks, RPGs are the same way; even
a mediocre game is still pretty damn good, and definitely better than
the alternatives.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
If the mediocre game is better than the alternatives (including the
non-RPG alternatives) ....

Then you have my sympathies.

No condolences necessary, if I think a mediocre RPG is more fun than the
alternatives. That doesn't necessarily imply that my options are
limited, just that I enjoy mediocre RPGs.
To make this more obvious: When he heard people complaining about sex,
my college roommate would reply, "Funny -- the worst blowjob I ever got
was still pretty damn good." For some folks, RPGs are the same way; even
a mediocre game is still pretty damn good, and definitely better than
the alternatives.

I will rest my case on the fact that you just compared a RPG to a blowjob.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
If the mediocre game is better than the alternatives (including the
non-RPG alternatives) ....

Then you have my sympathies.

No condolences necessary, if I think a mediocre RPG is more fun than the
alternatives. That doesn't necessarily imply that my options are
limited, just that I enjoy mediocre RPGs.
To make this more obvious: When he heard people complaining about sex,
my college roommate would reply, "Funny -- the worst blowjob I ever got
was still pretty damn good." For some folks, RPGs are the same way; even
a mediocre game is still pretty damn good, and definitely better than
the alternatives.

I will rest my case on the fact that you just compared a RPG to a blowjob.

You're just jealous.

[David Meadows]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows
A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any
particular game the GM is more important than any one of the players

Only if you falsely believe that a mediocre game is better than no game.

I honestly don't follow your logic here. How does that affect the question
one way or the other?

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by David Meadows

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows
A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any
particular game the GM is more important than any one of the players

Only if you falsely believe that a mediocre game is better than no game.

I honestly don't follow your logic here. How does that affect the
question one way or the other?

Even if I concede that a game cannot happen without a GM, all that does is
allow the game to happen. It doesn't make it enjoyable. Most important
would equal "whoever brings the most enjoyment."

[David Meadows]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows
A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any
particular game the GM is more important than any one of the players

Only if you falsely believe that a mediocre game is better than no game.

I honestly don't follow your logic here. How does that affect the
question one way or the other?

Even if I concede that a game cannot happen without a GM, all that does is
allow the game to happen. It doesn't make it enjoyable. Most important
would equal "whoever brings the most enjoyment."

Got it. I agree that most important equals "whoever brings the most
enjoyment". And I concede that a game could be set up to run GM-less. But a
game set up to run with a GM, probably cannot run at all if that GM is
absent. A game that does not run, by definition, provides zero enjoyment. So
by your argument, the most important person in that game is...

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by David Meadows

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows
A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any
particular game the GM is more important than any one of the players

Only if you falsely believe that a mediocre game is better than no game.

I honestly don't follow your logic here. How does that affect the
question one way or the other?

Even if I concede that a game cannot happen without a GM, all that
does is allow the game to happen. It doesn't make it enjoyable.
Most important would equal "whoever brings the most enjoyment."

Got it. I agree that most important equals "whoever brings the most
enjoyment". And I concede that a game could be set up to run GM-less.
But a game set up to run with a GM, probably cannot run at all if that
GM is absent. A game that does not run, by definition, provides zero
enjoyment.

There's where you are wrong. A game that doesn't happen provides
whatever enjoyment happens without the game. Hence, when doing the
calculation, of how much fun the GM brings, it is "fun from mediocre game
- fun from whatever else you would do without a game" and with that
calculation it's really easy for a decent player to surpass a GM who
provides only a mediocre game.

Post by David Meadows
So by your argument, the most important person in that game
is...

[David Meadows]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows
A valid analysis, which doesn't change the fact that for any
particular game the GM is more important than any one of the players

Only if you falsely believe that a mediocre game is better than no game.

I honestly don't follow your logic here. How does that affect the
question one way or the other?

Even if I concede that a game cannot happen without a GM, all that
does is allow the game to happen. It doesn't make it enjoyable.
Most important would equal "whoever brings the most enjoyment."

Got it. I agree that most important equals "whoever brings the most
enjoyment". And I concede that a game could be set up to run GM-less.
But a game set up to run with a GM, probably cannot run at all if that
GM is absent. A game that does not run, by definition, provides zero
enjoyment.

There's where you are wrong. A game that doesn't happen provides
whatever enjoyment happens without the game. Hence, when doing the
calculation, of how much fun the GM brings, it is "fun from mediocre game
- fun from whatever else you would do without a game" and with that
calculation it's really easy for a decent player to surpass a GM who
provides only a mediocre game.

My mistake. When you said, "whoever brings the most enjoyment" I assumed
(from the context of the argument) that you meant, "whoever brings the most
enjoyment TO THE GAME". It appears that you really meant, "whoever brings
the most enjoyment TO THE AFTERNOON'S ACTIVITIES". Which to me seems
irrelevant when we're actually debating games, not miscellaneous afternoon
fun.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by David Meadows

Post by Robert Scott Clark
There's where you are wrong. A game that doesn't happen provides
whatever enjoyment happens without the game. Hence, when doing the
calculation, of how much fun the GM brings, it is "fun from mediocre
game - fun from whatever else you would do without a game" and with
that calculation it's really easy for a decent player to surpass a GM
who provides only a mediocre game.

My mistake. When you said, "whoever brings the most enjoyment" I
assumed (from the context of the argument) that you meant, "whoever
brings the most enjoyment TO THE GAME". It appears that you really
meant, "whoever brings the most enjoyment TO THE AFTERNOON'S
ACTIVITIES". Which to me seems irrelevant when we're actually debating
games, not miscellaneous afternoon fun.

But that's exactly why the GM-God dogma is untrue. There's always an
alternative to suffering along in an unpleasant game. If you don't like
the GM, you can always kick him out of the group, kick him out of the
GM's seat, or simply insist that you play some other game while he's
around.

[David Meadows]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by David Meadows

Post by Robert Scott Clark
There's where you are wrong. A game that doesn't happen provides
whatever enjoyment happens without the game. Hence, when doing the
calculation, of how much fun the GM brings, it is "fun from mediocre
game - fun from whatever else you would do without a game" and with
that calculation it's really easy for a decent player to surpass a GM
who provides only a mediocre game.

My mistake. When you said, "whoever brings the most enjoyment" I
assumed (from the context of the argument) that you meant, "whoever
brings the most enjoyment TO THE GAME". It appears that you really
meant, "whoever brings the most enjoyment TO THE AFTERNOON'S
ACTIVITIES". Which to me seems irrelevant when we're actually debating
games, not miscellaneous afternoon fun.

But that's exactly why the GM-God dogma is untrue. There's always an
alternative to suffering along in an unpleasant game. If you don't like
the GM, you can always kick him out of the group, kick him out of the
GM's seat, or simply insist that you play some other game while he's
around.

Ok, we're never likely to resolve this because we're not even arguing
opposite positions.

I'm saying that the GM is god within one specific game. You're saying the
world includes other activities, such as other games in which he is not god.

Those two positions are not mutually exclusive.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by David Meadows
I'm saying that the GM is god within one specific game. You're saying
the world includes other activities, such as other games in which he
is not god.

No, the particular statements you are responding to are about the idea that
the GM is most important part, which is tangential to the GM is god part.

[David Meadows]

Post by Robert Scott Clark

Post by David Meadows
I'm saying that the GM is god within one specific game. You're saying
the world includes other activities, such as other games in which he
is not god.

No, the particular statements you are responding to are about the idea that
the GM is most important part, which is tangential to the GM is god part.

You're right, my last post was imprecise. I'll try again:

-----
Ok, we're never likely to resolve this because we're not even arguing
opposite positions.

I'm saying that the GM is the most important part of one specific game.
You're saying the world includes other activities, such as other games in
which he is not the most important part.

Those two positions are not mutually exclusive.
-------

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by David Meadows
Ok, we're never likely to resolve this because we're not even arguing
opposite positions. I'm saying that the GM is god within one specific
game. You're saying the [real] world includes other activities, such
as other games in which he is not god. Those two positions are not
mutually exclusive.

They are, but we haven't done a very good job of explaining why. I
explained it better in another thread, but unfortunately it wasn't
cross-posted to RGFD.

* * *

In general, the GM[1] and the other players divide the responsibility
for resolving disputes. Traditionally, the GM has the final word on
rules disputes, setting issues, rulemaking, resolution of actions --
everything except PC free will. Some groups divide authority
differently: They may rely on consensus for rules disputes, give players
authority over parts of the setting, rotate the GM position, or some
other arrangement.

Where does the GM get the authority to resolve disputes? What's the
source of his power? We've heard a few answers so far:

1. The power is part of the definition of the GM role.
2. The GM has power because he owns the game.
3. The GM creates and therefore owns the setting, rules, etc.
4. The GM can kick out the players, but not vice versa.
5. The group agrees to a social contract that delegates power to the GM.

I believe that only the last explanation is true. Perhaps this is a bit
too philosophical, but I believe that you can only obtain power over
another person by mutual agreement, force, or fraud.[2] I've never seen
a GM use force or fraud to seize power, which leaves mutual agreement
(a "game contract," in RGFA parlance).

Usually, the game contract is implicit. When a player joins the game,
part of the implicit "membership agreement" is that he accepts all of
the group's rules, by-laws, and traditions, including the delegation of
power. He does this because he expects to receive something of value in
exchange: entertainment, exciting adventures, an interesting setting, a
fair referee.

In some groups, the agreement is more explicit. A few groups use formal,
written game contracts (or at least written house rules). Many groups
interview potential players to determine compatibility. But the contract
is usually informal and unspoken; the group may evolve their policies
over time, but new players must take them or leave them.

* * *

Let's re-examine the answers above, in this context.

1. The power is part of the definition of the GM role.

Many RPGs describe a specific division of authority in the game rules.
By agreeing to play the game, the players implicitly agree to those
rules. They give power to the GM in exchange for the ability to play the
game. (The group can change these rules -- agree to a different contract
-- but many groups never even consider the possibility.)

2. The GM has power because he owns the game.

This is similar to the first answer: The player agrees to give the GM
power, and the GM agrees to share his game. Why does the GM own the
game? Some people have claimed that it's "by definition," as above.
Others give the following reason.

3. The GM creates and therefore owns the setting, rules, etc.

In most gaming groups, the GM does most of the work: He develops a
setting, writes adventures, expands the rules, makes policy decisions,
acts as a referee, etc. This work creates value: An interesting setting,
fun adventures, a fair and consistent play environment, etc. The players
delegate power to the GM in exchange for the value he brings to the
game.

4. The GM can kick out the players, but not vice versa.

This is similar to the last answer, except the GM is somehow
irreplaceable. Maybe he runs the game in his own home, or the players
don't have enough information to keep the game running without him.
However, it's still basically the same scenario; the players exchange
power for value.

5. The group agrees to a social contract that delegates power to the GM.

This is just a generalization of all the other answers.

* * *

OK, now let's reconsider your remarks at the beginning of this article.
The "other activities" aren't really important in themselves. It's just
one way of demonstrating that the GM always has limited power, because
the players can always choose to "take the power back" if the GM breaks
his half of the game contract. They can always play Monopoly or rent
pornos or go to a movie instead. Even in the most one-sided game
contract, the players can always give the GM an ultimatum: "Give us the
value we're looking for, or you won't have us to kick around anymore."

Usually, it doesn't come to that. In some cases, that's because the GM
listens to his players and adjusts the game so that they don't need to
deliver the ultimatum. Even if he has ultimate power over the game, he
respects his players' desires well enough that they get what they want
out of the game.

However, in other cases, the ultimatum never comes because the players
don't know any better. They don't realize that they have the power to
change the game. In fact, when they try to speak up, other players smack
them down, "reminding" them that they don't have the right to question
the GM. This is the most dangerous and unhealthy aspect of the "GM is
God" dogma: It leads many players to believe that the GM's power is
automatic and irrevocable.

* * *

[1] I'm referring to all variants of "the guy who plays the NPCs,"
including game masters, game moderators, referees, judges,
storytellers, etc.
[2] In a way, force and fraud are special cases of agreement. There's
still an agreement, but it's founded on a threat or a lie instead an
informed, voluntary decision.

[Arian]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
the GM[1]
[1] I'm referring to all variants of "the guy who plays the NPCs,"
including game masters, game moderators, referees, judges,
storytellers, etc.

<cough> I trust that was a gender-neutral meaning of "guy"...

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Arian

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
the GM[1]
[1] I'm referring to all variants of "the guy who plays the NPCs,"
including game masters, game moderators, referees, judges,
storytellers, etc.

<cough> I trust that was a gender-neutral meaning of "guy"...

Yes, indeed.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by David Meadows
Got it. I agree that most important equals "whoever brings the most
enjoyment". And I concede that a game could be set up to run GM-less.
But a game set up to run with a GM, probably cannot run at all if that
GM is absent. A game that does not run, by definition, provides zero
enjoyment. So by your argument, the most important person in that game
is...

That doesn't follow. "Necessary but insufficient" does not imply "most
important."

[T. Koivula]

Post by Warren J. Dew
In other words, without the ability to communicate with the guide, the
characters ought to expect to be lost.

He's talking about the GM ruling that they didn't remember which door they
entered the room through...

--
T. Koivula

[David Meadows]

"Jeff Heikkinen" <***@s.if> wrote in message news:***@news.easynews.com...
[snip situation]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Discuss :-).

It's not possible that there is a valid, in-game reason for this that your
character should have been investigating? I think that after an initial
*player* disgruntlement, my *character* would have thought, "this is
impossible... all five of us unable to find the right door? This is some
kind of trap, a confusion spell or something..." and play it out from those
assumptions. I know that as GM I've done things that have annoyed players
for their seeming capriciousness but which have had an in-game logic and can
be played through and solved. If I'd had a player just walk out because they
couldn't be bothered to solve the puzzle, I would be extremely unhappy with
the player. (Although, to be fair, I would have been dropping hints such as,
"yes, it's very strange, you don't understand how you could be so confused,
unless...")

[Jeff Heikkinen]

David Meadows, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by David Meadows
[snip situation]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Discuss :-).

It's not possible that there is a valid, in-game reason for this that your
character should have been investigating? I think that after an initial
*player* disgruntlement, my *character* would have thought, "this is
impossible... all five of us unable to find the right door? This is some
kind of trap, a confusion spell or something..." and play it out from those
assumptions.

If this is the case, and there was no saving throw or anything against
it, then this is actually WORSE than what I originally thought.

If this is the case and there WAS (presumably rolled secretly some time
the previous session), you would think he would have at least hinted at
this when it became clear that it was bothering me. Not to mention left
*some* sort of clue that something like this was going on, or we're back
to the unfairness of the no-save scenario.

Post by David Meadows
I know that as GM I've done things that have annoyed players
for their seeming capriciousness but which have had an in-game logic and can
be played through and solved. If I'd had a player just walk out because they
couldn't be bothered to solve the puzzle, I would be extremely unhappy with
the player. (Although, to be fair, I would have been dropping hints such as,
"yes, it's very strange, you don't understand how you could be so confused,
unless...")

Yes, that's what I mean - there was no *hint* of this, just a brute
fact. And the thing is, the ONLY reason no-one specifically mentioned
leaving marks or anything is that, in our previous lost-in-the-woods
escapades, several players have suggested this and he blew it off,
basically saying that even if we did we'd probably be unable to find the
trail we'd blazed again. So it seemed to fit into a pattern of previous
behaviour on his part, only this time taken to even more of an extreme.

[Wayne Shaw]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
David Meadows, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by David Meadows
[snip situation]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Discuss :-).

It's not possible that there is a valid, in-game reason for this that your
character should have been investigating? I think that after an initial
*player* disgruntlement, my *character* would have thought, "this is
impossible... all five of us unable to find the right door? This is some
kind of trap, a confusion spell or something..." and play it out from those
assumptions.

If this is the case, and there was no saving throw or anything against
it, then this is actually WORSE than what I originally thought.

I can think of ways it could be the case, but it'd instead permit a
Spot or Int roll of some sort; someone literally rearranged the cave
while you were gone.

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
If this is the case and there WAS (presumably rolled secretly some time
the previous session), you would think he would have at least hinted at
this when it became clear that it was bothering me. Not to mention left
*some* sort of clue that something like this was going on, or we're back
to the unfairness of the no-save scenario.

I tend to agree.

[David Meadows]

Post by Wayne Shaw

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
David Meadows, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by David Meadows
[snip situation]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Discuss :-).

It's not possible that there is a valid, in-game reason for this that your
character should have been investigating? I think that after an initial
*player* disgruntlement, my *character* would have thought, "this is
impossible... all five of us unable to find the right door? This is some
kind of trap, a confusion spell or something..." and play it out from those
assumptions.

If this is the case, and there was no saving throw or anything against
it, then this is actually WORSE than what I originally thought.

I can think of ways it could be the case, but it'd instead permit a
Spot or Int roll of some sort; someone literally rearranged the cave
while you were gone.

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
If this is the case and there WAS (presumably rolled secretly some time
the previous session), you would think he would have at least hinted at
this when it became clear that it was bothering me. Not to mention left
*some* sort of clue that something like this was going on, or we're back
to the unfairness of the no-save scenario.

I tend to agree.

I agree also. I was trying to offer an alternative view, but it sounds like
bad GMing whichever way you look at it. Part of a GM's skill-set needs to be
"people management" and it sounds like he doesn't have it.

[Peter Knutsen]

Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
[...]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
If this is the case and there WAS (presumably rolled secretly some time
the previous session), you would think he would have at least hinted at
this when it became clear that it was bothering me. Not to mention left
*some* sort of clue that something like this was going on, or we're back
to the unfairness of the no-save scenario.

It's not so much unfair, as it's a seemingly limitless disrespect for
the capabilitistic individuality of the PCs. He could have called for
a DC 60 Intuit Direction roll, or something like that, thereby
signalling that if one PC *had* happened to have an insanely high
capability in that regard, he or she *would* have made it.

But he didn't. He exhibited, in full, a willingness to disregard the
abilities of the PCs, assigning higher priority to steering the game
world events in whatever direction he feels they should take.

It's an almost socialistic taking for granted that all the PCs are
capabilitistically alike, something which offends me to an extreme
degree. A lot of GMing habits bother me, but this one is the *worst*
offence of all.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Peter Knutsen, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
If this is the case and there WAS (presumably rolled secretly some time
the previous session), you would think he would have at least hinted at
this when it became clear that it was bothering me. Not to mention left
*some* sort of clue that something like this was going on, or we're back
to the unfairness of the no-save scenario.

It's not so much unfair, as it's a seemingly limitless disrespect for
the capabilitistic individuality of the PCs. He could have called for
a DC 60 Intuit Direction roll, or something like that, thereby
signalling that if one PC *had* happened to have an insanely high
capability in that regard, he or she *would* have made it.
But he didn't. He exhibited, in full, a willingness to disregard the
abilities of the PCs, assigning higher priority to steering the game
world events in whatever direction he feels they should take.
It's an almost socialistic taking for granted that all the PCs are
capabilitistically alike, something which offends me to an extreme
degree. A lot of GMing habits bother me, but this one is the *worst*
offence of all.

As usual, Mr Knutsen takes an idea I basically agree with, and runs with
it to an extreme I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole if I was wearing
a radiation suit :-). That was, er, interesting.

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
As usual, Mr Knutsen takes an idea I basically agree with, and runs
with it to an extreme I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole if I was
wearing a radiation suit :-). That was, er, interesting.

That is Peter's talent - and his curse.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by David Meadows
[snip situation]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Discuss :-).

It's not possible that there is a valid, in-game reason for this that your
character should have been investigating? I think that after an initial
*player* disgruntlement, my *character* would have thought, "this is
impossible... all five of us unable to find the right door? This is some
kind of trap, a confusion spell or something..." and play it out from those
assumptions. I know that as GM I've done things that have annoyed players
for their seeming capriciousness but which have had an in-game logic and can
be played through and solved. If I'd had a player just walk out because they
couldn't be bothered to solve the puzzle, I would be extremely unhappy with
the player. (Although, to be fair, I would have been dropping hints such as,
"yes, it's very strange, you don't understand how you could be so confused,
unless...")

That's all very well if there *is* a puzzle, or if the GM is
prepared to retcon in a puzzle when the PCs react this way. It doesn't
work so well if there wasn't any puzzle: then the PCs are just,
from the GM's point of view, overreacting to an ordinary quality of
the gameworld.

Speaking as a GM, this can be quite as irksome as players who give
up when something doesn't make sense. In a recent game of mine with
Jon, he picked up on a small inaccuracy I'd made and used it to deduce
that the problem was hugely more difficult than he'd thought. The
PCs then behaved in a desperate and very risky fashion. I wish he
hadn't done this--it nearly screwed up the game, and I'd rather just
have been told "hey, I think this is inconsistent." (Which, to his
credit, he did say once we had the discussion.)

I think the onus is really on the GM here to say "I know this sounds
weird, but there is a reason" when s/he sees a player reaction like
this one. I agree with David's "I would have been dropping hints"
statement, and I'd go farther and say that if the GM *doesn't*
drop hints, s/he is assuming more player trust than s/he may have
earned yet, and asking for trouble.

In the _Paradisio_ campaign we agreed at game start that there was
no teleportation in the gameworld. It turned out that Jon didn't
think Gates fell within the ban on teleportation. I was taken
aback, but willing to accept this. Then he ran a session where
we'd cornered some bad guys away from their base, but they vanished.
It seemed to me as a player that this was teleportation, and I
got really angry with him. I figured that if had been willing to
admit Gates despite our agreement, maybe this was another case
like that--maybe it "wasn't really teleport but dimension door"
or something of that sort. As it turns out, it was more like
heavily improved invisibility, but by not addressing the player
trust issue, GM and player got into a nasty fight which could have
been avoided, and which blighted the game for quite a while.

It seems to me that there may be some surprises which make sense
in the gameworld and are fully defensible there, but are still a
GMing mistake in any but the most strictly simulationist campaigns.
The disappearing enemies in Paradisio may have been one of those
for me. It was just too painfully hard to swallow.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Warren J. Dew]

Mary Kuhner posts, in part:

I think the onus is really on the GM here to say "I
know this sounds weird, but there is a reason" when
s/he sees a player reaction like this one.

I don't actually think this works very well. For one thing, if it's a case of
assumption clash - for example, how easily one gets lost in a cave - it won't
sound weird to the gamesmaster; if something strange really is going on, the
gamesmaster may not want to tip his hand. For another, I don't think you can
count on the gamesmaster to notice this kind of player reaction.

In my experience, things work much better when the players to take the
initiative. My players sometimes say things of the form, 'this looks like an
inconsistency to me, is that the way it really is?' This gives me a chance to
correct things if I made a mistake - 'oops, I meant east, not west' - while
allowing me to simply confirm the situation if I don't want to reveal whether
there's really something strange going on - 'yes, it's daybreak at your lunar
camp, and the sun really did just rise in the west'.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[David Meadows]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner

Post by David Meadows
[snip situation]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Discuss :-).

Speaking as a GM, this can be quite as irksome as players who give
up when something doesn't make sense. In a recent game of mine with
Jon, he picked up on a small inaccuracy I'd made and used it to deduce
that the problem was hugely more difficult than he'd thought. The
PCs then behaved in a desperate and very risky fashion. I wish he
hadn't done this--it nearly screwed up the game, and I'd rather just
have been told "hey, I think this is inconsistent." (Which, to his
credit, he did say once we had the discussion.)
I think the onus is really on the GM here to say "I know this sounds
weird, but there is a reason" when s/he sees a player reaction like
this one. I agree with David's "I would have been dropping hints"
statement, and I'd go farther and say that if the GM *doesn't*
drop hints, s/he is assuming more player trust than s/he may have
earned yet, and asking for trouble.

[...]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
but by not addressing the player
trust issue, GM and player got into a nasty fight which could have
been avoided, and which blighted the game for quite a while.

I think player trust in a GM is a big factor in making a game work and it's
obvious that in the original example the GM had never made any effort to
earn his players' trust.

I'm lucky (?) in having had a pretty stable gaming group for 20 years; my
five current players have all been with me for about 12 years. In that time
they've learned my style (and vice-versa, of course). They know I'm not
going to pull an illogical trap out of nowhere just to screw with them. So
they trust me to have in-game logic behind the situation and, likewise, I
trust them to work at the problem until they get something out of it. It's a
trust thing, and without it I think my GMing style would have to be a lot
different.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
My suspension of disbeleif, always somewhat strained in that game
anyway, finally popped like a cheap lightbulb.
I literally could no longer imagine the situation or what my character
would do in it - I found this quite literally unbelievable. His
gameworld has always seemed to me to show some seams, but until now I
could grit my teeth and look the other way, but now it was literally not
possible for me to do any form of in-character thinking whatsoever.

It sounds like analyzing this particular incident is somewhat beside
the point--there's been an ongoing problem, and as you say, this
was the straw that broke the camel's back. By itself it's just a
straw.

I've experienced the sudden 'disconnect' you describe, and I sympathize--
it's a horrible feeling, and you really can't just grit your teeth
and keep roleplaying through it. At most you can sit back and let
the other players carry the game in the hopes that you'll recover,
but leaving the game is also, I think, a very reasonable response.

But it might be useful, in the long term, to figure out what the
pile of straws was. At least you could realize that things are going
wrong a bit sooner and with a bit more clarity, and maybe (it's
never a guarantee) that would help you avoid the collapse.

It sounds to me as if railroading per se wasn't the problem, especially
as the GM later allowed the problem to be easily solved.

Two issues I see clearly in your postings (not that that means I
know what could be done about them!):

(1) GM adjucation versus rules adjucation, possibly as a symptom of
an underlying trust issue. "He didn't even ask for a dice roll,
he just--" statements are a red flag for this. If the GM and players
are on the same wavelength, just about any point from mainly GM
to mainly rules can work, but it sounds like here the GM and at
least one player were *not* on the same wavelength. If the player
can't trust the GM's worldview, rules adjucation can
be extremely attractive because it seems to solve the problem (though
in the long term, it won't really). This can make the player push
for it, which can make the GM balky, and you have a vicious circle.

In this case, I'd suggest that rules adjucation won't really help,
so pushing for it is probably not the right answer. If the player
doesn't trust the GM's worldview, that's the level on which the
problem would have to be fixed, if it can be fixed at all.

Another poster suggests treating the inexplicible getting-lost as
an in-character challenge. I had a PC go mad once trying this.
In general I don't think it works; if the player can't buy the GM's
worldview, it's next to impossible for the PC to do so either.
And you can get into a horrid situation in which the players are
inventing a world reality that doesn't exist, and getting further
and further from the GM's world reality in the process--exacerbating
the problem instead of solving it.

The PC who went mad dealt with apparently inconsistent NPC behavior
by theorizing that there was magical impersonation going on. But
there wasn't, and the PC's behavior diverged further and further
from what the GM wanted or expected. Perhaps I had fun a little
longer than I otherwise would have, though the final descent into
outright madness was distressing to behold; but it didn't patch up
what was wrong with the game in any real sense.

(2) Abstraction level. It's possible (though I personally don't
care for it) to make "If you don't say it, your PC doesn't do it"
work. But it can't be combined with abstraction pressure from the
GM: if the players must specify everything their PC does, they must
have access to all the information their PC has. In the given
situation, it sounds as though the GM was trying to combine these
two incompatible styles, and this cut off the players from being able
to problem-solve reasonably.

In general, I think that if the GM abstracts something and thereby
denies the players the chance to do anything about it, he should
guarantee that it will not cause the PCs grief. A blatant example
would be that if the GM says "This fight is trivial, let's abstract
it" he should not then turn around and say "Your favorite sword
gets broken during the fight." Doing so will anger a *lot* of players.

I'm not sure what the players can do here, other than politely
insisting that if abstraction happens, it *must* include abstraction
of appropriately competent PC decisions. Here maybe rules *would*
help, if the GM is willing to abide by them.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Warren J. Dew]

Hm, it appears that my newserver is filtering some posts for inexplicable
reasons, and I just figured out how to get to the filtered posts....

Mary Kuhner posts, in part:

Another poster suggests treating the inexplicible
getting-lost as an in-character challenge. I had a PC
go mad once trying this. In general I don't think it
works; if the player can't buy the GM's worldview, it's
next to impossible for the PC to do so either. And you
can get into a horrid situation in which the players are
inventing a world reality that doesn't exist, and getting
further and further from the GM's world reality in the
process--exacerbating the problem instead of solving it.

I had a similar experience with one character once, though I would say that it
was her that was inventing the world reality that didn't exist; I as a player
just tried to stay out of it. She didn't end up as a raving lunatic, but she
was definitely neurotic at the end.

I actually found the experience quite interesting, and not at all unrealistic.
There are plenty of people in the player world who don't accept how that world
works, after all.


Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Warren J. Dew
Hm, it appears that my newserver is filtering some posts for
inexplicable reasons, and I just figured out how to get to the
filtered posts....

Something similar is happening on my newsfeed. I got Mary's post, but
I'm missing some from David Meadows. I know they exist, because Scott
quoted them, but I can't get them from here.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:18:30 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Warren J. Dew
Hm, it appears that my newserver is filtering some posts for
inexplicable reasons, and I just figured out how to get to the
filtered posts....

Something similar is happening on my newsfeed. I got Mary's post, but
I'm missing some from David Meadows. I know they exist, because Scott
quoted them, but I can't get them from here.

I too, am missing posts, though they may just be delayed in the ether.
Blakgard's one, for example. I know of it from a reply to it by Jeff
(I think).

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Rupert Boleyn, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:18:30 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Warren J. Dew
Hm, it appears that my newserver is filtering some posts for
inexplicable reasons, and I just figured out how to get to the
filtered posts....

Something similar is happening on my newsfeed. I got Mary's post, but
I'm missing some from David Meadows. I know they exist, because Scott
quoted them, but I can't get them from here.

I too, am missing posts, though they may just be delayed in the ether.
Blakgard's one, for example. I know of it from a reply to it by Jeff
(I think).

Well, that there's an explanation for. I originally crossposted the
Myths thread (but not the Why I Walked or Myths 2 threads) to rgfd. One
guy in rgfd is surrepetitiosly removing rgfa from the Newsgroups field
when he replies, which is often. When I reply to a subthread that's
"damaged" in that way, I put RGFA back in, unless it really is D&D-
specific or just generally trollish. A post where I make a substantive
point - and I'm rather proud of that response to Blakgard - I'll throw
back into .advocacy in case it interests the people here; if I'm just
flaming a troll, I won't bother.

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Well, that there's an explanation for. I originally crossposted the
Myths thread (but not the Why I Walked or Myths 2 threads) to rgfd. One
guy in rgfd is surrepetitiosly removing rgfa from the Newsgroups field
when he replies, which is often. When I reply to a subthread that's
"damaged" in that way, I put RGFA back in, unless it really is D&D-
specific or just generally trollish. A post where I make a substantive
point - and I'm rather proud of that response to Blakgard - I'll throw
back into .advocacy in case it interests the people here; if I'm just
flaming a troll, I won't bother.

Arrrgh. I HATE it when people do that! I've only been following this
in .advocacy and I told my newsreader to kill the thread in .dnd so I
wouldn't end up reading everything twice. Thanks to that bullshit if I
want to catch everything I'll have to turn the thread back on in .dnd
and then wade through days of posts to find the one's I've missed.

Now I'm pissed off - who's the sod doing this (I've forgotten which
one does this stunt)?

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Rupert Boleyn, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Well, that there's an explanation for. I originally crossposted the
Myths thread (but not the Why I Walked or Myths 2 threads) to rgfd. One
guy in rgfd is surrepetitiosly removing rgfa from the Newsgroups field
when he replies, which is often. When I reply to a subthread that's
"damaged" in that way, I put RGFA back in, unless it really is D&D-
specific or just generally trollish. A post where I make a substantive
point - and I'm rather proud of that response to Blakgard - I'll throw
back into .advocacy in case it interests the people here; if I'm just
flaming a troll, I won't bother.

Arrrgh. I HATE it when people do that! I've only been following this
in .advocacy and I told my newsreader to kill the thread in .dnd so I
wouldn't end up reading everything twice. Thanks to that bullshit if I
want to catch everything I'll have to turn the thread back on in .dnd
and then wade through days of posts to find the one's I've missed.
Now I'm pissed off - who's the sod doing this (I've forgotten which
one does this stunt)?

D.J.

Actually, there's also a subthread on firearms that's like that, which
predates his participation. But really, you haven't missed that much,
quality-wise. There were a couple of other replies to the same post of
Blakgard's that were quite good, but most of it has been Bradd and Kaos
getting into not terribly interesting arguments over various issues.

[Wayne Shaw]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:54:25 +1300, Rupert Boleyn

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Well, that there's an explanation for. I originally crossposted the
Myths thread (but not the Why I Walked or Myths 2 threads) to rgfd. One
guy in rgfd is surrepetitiosly removing rgfa from the Newsgroups field
when he replies, which is often. When I reply to a subthread that's
"damaged" in that way, I put RGFA back in, unless it really is D&D-
specific or just generally trollish. A post where I make a substantive
point - and I'm rather proud of that response to Blakgard - I'll throw
back into .advocacy in case it interests the people here; if I'm just
flaming a troll, I won't bother.

Arrrgh. I HATE it when people do that! I've only been following this
in .advocacy and I told my newsreader to kill the thread in .dnd so I
wouldn't end up reading everything twice. Thanks to that bullshit if I

I did the same thing for the same reason; especially with a big thread
like this, I don't need to click my way through all the posts twice.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Wayne Shaw
I did the same thing for the same reason; especially with a big thread
like this, I don't need to click my way through all the posts twice.

Do the same crosspost checking thing I suggested to Rupert in that
other reply.



Ed Chauvin IV

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Well, that there's an explanation for. I originally crossposted the
Myths thread (but not the Why I Walked or Myths 2 threads) to rgfd. One
guy in rgfd is surrepetitiosly removing rgfa from the Newsgroups field
when he replies, which is often. When I reply to a subthread that's
"damaged" in that way, I put RGFA back in, unless it really is D&D-
specific or just generally trollish. A post where I make a substantive
point - and I'm rather proud of that response to Blakgard - I'll throw
back into .advocacy in case it interests the people here; if I'm just
flaming a troll, I won't bother.

Arrrgh. I HATE it when people do that! I've only been following this
in .advocacy and I told my newsreader to kill the thread in .dnd so I
wouldn't end up reading everything twice. Thanks to that bullshit if I
want to catch everything I'll have to turn the thread back on in .dnd
and then wade through days of posts to find the one's I've missed.

Um, just turn on crosspost checking (default group properties |
crossposts) and tell Agent to either mark already seen headers read or
to skip them. Then you'll get all the messages, but only once.



Ed Chauvin IV

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:32:49 -0500, Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
Um, just turn on crosspost checking (default group properties |
crossposts) and tell Agent to either mark already seen headers read or
to skip them. Then you'll get all the messages, but only once.

I only have Free Agent, and buying Agent isn't an option right now.

[Ed Chauvin IV]

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:32:49 -0500, Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
Um, just turn on crosspost checking (default group properties |
crossposts) and tell Agent to either mark already seen headers read or
to skip them. Then you'll get all the messages, but only once.

I only have Free Agent, and buying Agent isn't an option right now.

I always forget which features are "free". :-P



Ed Chauvin IV

[Wayne Shaw]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:32:49 -0500, Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Ed Chauvin IV

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Well, that there's an explanation for. I originally crossposted the
Myths thread (but not the Why I Walked or Myths 2 threads) to rgfd. One
guy in rgfd is surrepetitiosly removing rgfa from the Newsgroups field
when he replies, which is often. When I reply to a subthread that's
"damaged" in that way, I put RGFA back in, unless it really is D&D-
specific or just generally trollish. A post where I make a substantive
point - and I'm rather proud of that response to Blakgard - I'll throw
back into .advocacy in case it interests the people here; if I'm just
flaming a troll, I won't bother.

Arrrgh. I HATE it when people do that! I've only been following this
in .advocacy and I told my newsreader to kill the thread in .dnd so I
wouldn't end up reading everything twice. Thanks to that bullshit if I
want to catch everything I'll have to turn the thread back on in .dnd
and then wade through days of posts to find the one's I've missed.

Um, just turn on crosspost checking (default group properties |
crossposts) and tell Agent to either mark already seen headers read or
to skip them. Then you'll get all the messages, but only once.

Very cool. Thanks, Ed.

[Warren J. Dew]

Rupert Boleyn posts, in part:

I've only been following this in .advocacy and I told my
newsreader to kill the thread in .dnd so I wouldn't end
up reading everything twice.

And I hate it when people crosspost. Even Jeff has tacitly admitted that
crossposting that thread was a mistake, since his followup thread was posted to
rgfa only, removing rgfd from distribution.

The majority of rgfa regulars prefer not to read rgfd, and crossposting forces
them to wade through numerous irrelevant posts from rgfd. This is why
crossposting is almost always a major violation of netiquette.

Now I'm pissed off - who's the sod doing this (I've
forgotten which one does this stunt)?

I'm doing it - I've been removing rgfd from distribution on every one of my
posts, because I'm not interested in rgfd responses, and I don't want to force
my responses, which have nothing to do with dnd, on the poor folks in rgfd. I
really appreciate anyone in rgfd who has been likewise removing rgfa from
distribution, thus reducing the amount of spam in this newsgroup.

The real netiquette violators are the people who add the crosspost back in.

Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

[Robert Scott Clark]

Post by Warren J. Dew
I've only been following this in .advocacy and I told my
newsreader to kill the thread in .dnd so I wouldn't end
up reading everything twice.
And I hate it when people crosspost. Even Jeff has tacitly admitted
that crossposting that thread was a mistake, since his followup thread
was posted to rgfa only, removing rgfd from distribution.
The majority of rgfa regulars prefer not to read rgfd,

That is probably an overstatement. I recognize plenty of names on both.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Warren J. Dew
And I hate it when people crosspost.

That's nice. It's still poor netiquette to remove an on-topic group from
the distribution list.

Post by Warren J. Dew
Even Jeff has tacitly admitted that crossposting that thread was a
mistake, since his followup thread was posted to rgfa only, removing
rgfd from distribution.

You might have a point, if DJ had removed RGFD from the distribution
list, but he removed RGFA, which is arguably a better place for the
thread.

Post by Warren J. Dew
The majority of rgfa regulars prefer not to read rgfd ....

Unless you're counting lurkers that I don't know about, I think you'll
need some numbers to back up that claim.

Post by Warren J. Dew
... and crossposting forces them to wade through numerous irrelevant
posts from rgfd.

Which posts were irrelevant, other than a couple of blatant trolls from
Ron Poirier?

Post by Warren J. Dew
This is why crossposting is almost always a major violation of
netiquette.

You're not doing a very good job of showing that. Sounds more like the
weak justification that DJ used.

Post by Warren J. Dew

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Now I'm pissed off - who's the sod doing this (I've forgotten which
one does this stunt)?

I'm doing it - I've been removing rgfd from distribution on every one
of my posts, because I'm not interested in rgfd responses, and I don't
want to force my responses, which have nothing to do with dnd, on the
poor folks in rgfd.

See, that's a good thing. If you feel that your responses are off-topic
for RGFD, that's the right thing to do. But quit defending a jerk who
got it exactly wrong.

Post by Warren J. Dew
I really appreciate anyone in rgfd who has been likewise removing rgfa
from distribution, thus reducing the amount of spam in this newsgroup.

It's not spam. I don't care what your personal prejudices against RGFD
are, it's not even remotely spam. Learn what you're talking about before
you insult people.

Post by Warren J. Dew
The real netiquette violators are the people who add the crosspost back in.

Bullshit, Warren. It's perfectly appropriate, when it's on-topic.

[George W. Harris]

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+***@szonye.com> wrote:

:Warren J. Dew <***@aol.com> wrote:
:> And I hate it when people crosspost.
:
:That's nice. It's still poor netiquette to remove an on-topic group from
:the distribution list.

It's just as poor netiquette, when cross-posting,
not to set follow-ups to the single most appropriate
newsgroup.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Warren J. Dew
And I hate it when people crosspost.

That's nice. It's still poor netiquette to remove an on-topic group
from the distribution list.

It's just as poor netiquette, when cross-posting, not to set
follow-ups to the single most appropriate newsgroup.

Sometimes, there is no single newsgroup that's most appropriate. IMO,
that was the case in this discussion, which was largely about play
styles (RGFA material) but with obvious D&D applications (RGFD).

If DJ had decided that the material was more appropriate for RGFD, he
should've cross-posted to both and set followups to RGFD. That way,
responses would, by default, go only to the newsgroup he preferred, and
other participants would get fair warning that the discussion was
moving.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Warren J. Dew, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

Post by Warren J. Dew
I've only been following this in .advocacy and I told my
newsreader to kill the thread in .dnd so I wouldn't end
up reading everything twice.
And I hate it when people crosspost. Even Jeff has tacitly admitted that
crossposting that thread was a mistake, since his followup thread was posted to
rgfa only, removing rgfd from distribution.

There was nothing tacit about it; I said it pretty much straight out.
There were a few regulars there I was hoping to pull into an rgfa-style
discussion; I got about two thirds of the people I wanted, but some of
them, like Sea Wasp, were in a fighting mood, and I got folks I didn't
particularly want as well (Hong, anyone?). I should, as Wayne sort of
said, have foreseen this, but I didn't; live and learn.

Doesn't change the fact that it is *extremely* annoying for people
trying to follow the whole thread when people "correct" this after the
fact.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Doesn't change the fact that it is *extremely* annoying for people
trying to follow the whole thread when people "correct" [the
crossposting] after the fact.

Especially when they just drop one group, instead of using Followup-To:
headers. Those exist to warn interested readers that you're moving the
distribution (and gives them an opportunity to overrule the decision, if
the reply really is on-topic for both groups).

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by Warren J. Dew
I'm doing it - I've been removing rgfd from distribution on every one of my
posts, because I'm not interested in rgfd responses, and I don't want to force
my responses, which have nothing to do with dnd, on the poor folks in rgfd. I
really appreciate anyone in rgfd who has been likewise removing rgfa from
distribution, thus reducing the amount of spam in this newsgroup.
The real netiquette violators are the people who add the crosspost back in.

I wouldn't have nearly so annoyed if theose who'd done it had noted so
in their posts. Maybe I'm just lazy, not checking the distribution of
every post I read, but there you are.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

I wouldn't have nearly so annoyed if theose who'd [dropped RGFD from
the newsgroups list] had noted so in their posts. Maybe I'm just lazy,
not checking the distribution of every post I read, but there you are.

You're not lazy; that's exactly why Followup-To: exists.

[T. Koivula]

Post by Warren J. Dew
I'm doing it - I've been removing rgfd from distribution on every one
of my posts, because I'm not interested in rgfd responses, and I
don't want to force my responses, which have nothing to do with dnd,
on the poor folks in rgfd. I really appreciate anyone in rgfd who
has been likewise removing rgfa from distribution, thus reducing the
amount of spam in this newsgroup.

You're supposed to tell us if you tamper with distribution or follow-ups...

[Wayne Shaw]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:18:30 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Warren J. Dew
Hm, it appears that my newserver is filtering some posts for
inexplicable reasons, and I just figured out how to get to the
filtered posts....

Something similar is happening on my newsfeed. I got Mary's post, but
I'm missing some from David Meadows. I know they exist, because Scott
quoted them, but I can't get them from here.

I've not only had that sort of thing, but have been getting posts
seriously out of sequence, sometimes from the same people. It's very
odd.