trapcast.com

And another thought, are you seriously claiming that simply because people can agree on a general level ("Lets play Star Wars D20") that therefore they naturally will agree on all possible details? And furthermore, if they dont agree, the group should disband?

What if someone wants to play a Sith and everyone else doesnt? Should the game group simply dissolve and walk away? Or should one person just say, "no evil characters, sorry"?

First, tone check. I want to make sure we're both cool with each other and this doesn't turn into a stupid internet flame war. I'm certainly not upset and if I'm coming off that way, I'm sorry.

Second, I prefer to play in games where it's not only one person's job to design a world, develop a plot, and even prepare statistics. I prefer games where these things are done collaboratively and/or during play. In a game that requires one person to do a lot of solo prep work, yeah, one person does have to make a lot of unilateral decisions. That's why I prefer neither to play in nor GM such games (a phrase there which bothers me, says the GM is not playing the game, too, but I can't figure out how else to easily put it).

Finally, I have never had to spend several hours arguing about whether the players should be vampires. Sometimes the choice of game determines that (we're going to play Annalise, which is a vampire game, but which you cannot play a vampire in), and sometimes that decision is made by the group (we're playing Primetime Adventures, and we've decided we want to create a show about vampire hunter protagonists, and thus we agree as adults together that we don't want any vampires as protagonists on the show). Rarely do I play in a game anymore where one person is empowered to or has to make these decisions. I don't enjoy it.

If you can't agree together, then no, you shouldn't be playing together.

Or, more accurately and less proscriptively, I wouldn't want to play in a group where that kind of decision can't be made together.

There's some subtlety there. I'm not suggesting that functional groups don't occasionally clash over what they'd like to have in the game. But in the kinds of groups I prefer to play in, everyone can cooperatively decide what they want the outcome of that disagreement to be, even if it's just one or two people saying, "It's not my preference, but sure."

Critically, this power is not invested in a single individual, for every decision like this. No one is empowered to tell me no without making a case for it and considering my feedback as well (in my preferred play style).

There is definitely a game-style/game-preference thing going on here too...

IF you are talking about a more classically structured game, I think it's important that one person (the GM) has a bit more power than anyone else at the table. It's important for that type of game dynamic.

On the other hand, the games that work more like a story game don't really need that centralized power. In fact, its more like a brainstorming session where people just riff off one another - centralized power would damage that dynamic.

However, either way, people should be generally cool with the decisions being made. A power-tripping GM can destroy any game

I am slightly more serious about this than a "play preference" argument. I think it's categorically better when people are co-involved in the creativity on as many levels as possible.

However, I have to technically admit that my ability to reliably and accurately make claims on the objective goodness of this game style is probably adulterated by the fact that it fits my play preference. In other words, I might be wrong. Also, I know lots of people claim to prefer when they are more passive recipients of entertainment created by the GM (and I'm not being a dick here, I've heard people say this). I just have a really really hard time believing it.

I mean I know there are guys who like to have their balls crushed during sex, too. I just don't get it.

I never take the internet personally. No worries about that. But you led off the discussion with "I'll be fucked if I..." so dont be surprised at pushback. You basically act as if the dominant playstyle of the hobby is irredeemably flawed.



While I can respect your view, it is not the dominant view. Most people do not play that way. That doesnt mean its wrong. But you cannot then use that lens to analyze a whole genre. I may think that only purely first-person films (Blair Witch Project) are enjoyable. But I cant then say that all movies not filmed in that style are inherently flawed or shouldnt be watched by anyone.



I think there are two types of people out there: creators and non-creators. Creators want to control the world beyond the range of a single avatar, non-creators dont. I think you just dont want to be a non-creator. You want to be a creator even when you are not GM. That is why you play the way you do. Some people just dont want to create. They may want to create for one game, then take a break and just play without having to create. They may never want to create. Its a personal preference.

Most mainstream games are designed to have a single creator and everyone else is a non-creator. Im sorry you dont like that setup, but that is the dominant setup.

Ah, a fellow geek! Is it under version control as well?

Ever heard the phrase "too many Chiefs, not enough Indians" ? "Too many cooks in the kitchen" ? Adding more people to a group inherently makes it harder to reach agreement.



Do you have a hard time believing people would rather watch TV than work on the set to create it? Do you have a hard time believing people would rather play a video game than mod it?




Did you consider that on this issue, you might be the one who likes their balls to be crushed?

There's a difference between a power tripping gm which nobody likes and a gm that hands out a guideline for the sandbox he created for everyone to play in. The guideline was more like the constitution than a dictator. It bent went it needed to and stayed firm where it had to.

In Ryoken's play test example Some things were obvious not to take like computer programming but some things were prohibited due to lack of balance or a clash in setting. Despite this, some players chose something prohibited. They were allowed to do it anyway in the end, but it just required some parlay.

I think where the guideline helps is with game groups that don't know each other as well. Something like this would be good for me and brant's game group because if we're meeting from fairly far away and we don't know each other or the game too well the guide helps everyone understand generally what's happening and what's generally okay to make.

i don't think the guideline is 100% needed but if the gm wants to take the time to make one i don't think it hurts anything, so long as it stays a guideline and not THE WRITTEN INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD.

I love sentences like this.


I also love sentences like this... and having both in one post is awesome. Kudos.