aboyd
2010-02-09, 09:16 PM
***** (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=38521) has reported a post.
Reason:
Viletta "doubts the accuracy" of what Jayabalard said about *his own feelings.* She doesn't want to flat-out state that she is accusing him of being a liar, so she uses ridiculous twists of language to mask the insult.
I find her treatment of people in the thread to be terribly disrespectful. That she can dress up explosive, dismissive comments in erudite words doesn't diminish the rudeness. :(
Post: DM doesn't get it. 3.5 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7856551#post7856551)
Forum: Roleplaying Games
Assigned Moderators: WampaX, Grey Watcher, Roland St. Jude, The Giant
Posted by: Viletta Vadim (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=49552)
Original Content:
So, yes please enlighten me about the difference between "questioning the truth of someone relating their own personal experiences" and "lying".
Intent.
Or if you'd rather go back to the earlier quote, you can talk about exactly what you meant by that "I very much doubt this." in response to me talking about my personal preferences in gaming. Are you implying that I am incorrect about what I like and don't like?
I'm implying that I doubt the accuracy of what you said. Whether it be a lie, a lapse in self-awareness, a lapse in language, it doesn't matter.
Certainly, but you've done nothing to show that this is a bad policy. Just that you don't like it. And specifically, that you don't like it when it's done badly. That doesn't make it bad policy.
I think it's a fine policy; I like it when GM's do that, especially when they do it well. Like everything else that the GM does, when it's done badly it detracts from the game.
Getting player input is a technique for reducing the probability of doing badly by ascertaining the tastes to which the game must cater. Not getting player input increases the probability of making a bad game that no one enjoys because player tastes are an unknown.
A technique that decreases the probability of producing crap is inherently superior to a technique that does not decrease the probability of producing crap.
Yes, if you guess at design loads for a beam and happen to get it right, the beam will perform just as well as a beam where you actually figure out correct design loads in the first place. That doesn't make them equal techniques.
I don't see this as a true statement. Rolling dice is dependent on chance; DM deciding outcomes that players always fail arbitrarily is far more rigorous and reliable (you always know how it's going to turn out). By this logic, a game system where you roll dice to determine outcomes is inferior to one where the DM just always tells the players that they fail.
Now we're using two different definitions of 'system.' You're talking about a game system. I'm talking about design methods. Two different things.
A design method that relies on sheer luck to produce a quality product is inherently inferior to a design method that actually incorporates quality control and assessment.
The mistake you make here is, that you assume that player input automaticly leads to a better gaming experience in contrast to a DM-only created setting, that can or can not create a good gaming experience.
Player tastes and desires are a vital variable that must be accounted. That does not automatically make a good game, but it does automatically decrease the chance of a game that completely misses the mark.
A DM could create the greatest courtly intrigue scenario in the history of the universe, but if the players aren't interested in courtly intrigue and instead want a war campaign, the game is going to fall flat on its face. The DM could return to the drawing board and comes up with the greatest campaign ever written about dwarves defending a dwarven hold, only to find out the players all hate dwarves with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns. Now, the campaign fails again.. In this case, because the DM did not seek player input as to whether or not anyone even liked
Seeking player input is about maximizing the probability of accommodating player tastes and minimizing the probability of running a game that sucks.
Humans have different preferences. I think you acknowledge this.
Whenever SOMEONE, be it the DM, a player, or a third party like WotC (with a published setting), makes a decision in the establishment of the setting, chances are the someone else in the group doesnt like this decision.
"Get player input," does not mean, "Don't make decisions." It doesn't necessarily mean group world burning, or that the group as a whole makes every single decision, and it especially doesn't mean that every aspect of the game must be unanimous. It means get player input. Nothing more, nothing less. In the end, the DM has to sort everything out in order to make something that's fun for everyone, sure, and it's not going to be everything for everyone at all times, but the input is necessary in order to know what you're designing for.
Just a couple of follow up questions, if I may:
How many different groups have you gamed with?
How much of your gaming is online, and how much is sitting around the table?
...I'm just trying to get a feel of how your gaming experiences may differ from mine.
1) Online, a metric ton. Offline? I had a steady group through high school, with a lot of side-games here and there.
2) Lately? With college and related scheduling issues, it's been hard to hold a steady group together. Most of my gaming's taken to the net since then.
Reason:
Viletta "doubts the accuracy" of what Jayabalard said about *his own feelings.* She doesn't want to flat-out state that she is accusing him of being a liar, so she uses ridiculous twists of language to mask the insult.
I find her treatment of people in the thread to be terribly disrespectful. That she can dress up explosive, dismissive comments in erudite words doesn't diminish the rudeness. :(
Post: DM doesn't get it. 3.5 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7856551#post7856551)
Forum: Roleplaying Games
Assigned Moderators: WampaX, Grey Watcher, Roland St. Jude, The Giant
Posted by: Viletta Vadim (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=49552)
Original Content:
So, yes please enlighten me about the difference between "questioning the truth of someone relating their own personal experiences" and "lying".
Intent.
Or if you'd rather go back to the earlier quote, you can talk about exactly what you meant by that "I very much doubt this." in response to me talking about my personal preferences in gaming. Are you implying that I am incorrect about what I like and don't like?
I'm implying that I doubt the accuracy of what you said. Whether it be a lie, a lapse in self-awareness, a lapse in language, it doesn't matter.
Certainly, but you've done nothing to show that this is a bad policy. Just that you don't like it. And specifically, that you don't like it when it's done badly. That doesn't make it bad policy.
I think it's a fine policy; I like it when GM's do that, especially when they do it well. Like everything else that the GM does, when it's done badly it detracts from the game.
Getting player input is a technique for reducing the probability of doing badly by ascertaining the tastes to which the game must cater. Not getting player input increases the probability of making a bad game that no one enjoys because player tastes are an unknown.
A technique that decreases the probability of producing crap is inherently superior to a technique that does not decrease the probability of producing crap.
Yes, if you guess at design loads for a beam and happen to get it right, the beam will perform just as well as a beam where you actually figure out correct design loads in the first place. That doesn't make them equal techniques.
I don't see this as a true statement. Rolling dice is dependent on chance; DM deciding outcomes that players always fail arbitrarily is far more rigorous and reliable (you always know how it's going to turn out). By this logic, a game system where you roll dice to determine outcomes is inferior to one where the DM just always tells the players that they fail.
Now we're using two different definitions of 'system.' You're talking about a game system. I'm talking about design methods. Two different things.
A design method that relies on sheer luck to produce a quality product is inherently inferior to a design method that actually incorporates quality control and assessment.
The mistake you make here is, that you assume that player input automaticly leads to a better gaming experience in contrast to a DM-only created setting, that can or can not create a good gaming experience.
Player tastes and desires are a vital variable that must be accounted. That does not automatically make a good game, but it does automatically decrease the chance of a game that completely misses the mark.
A DM could create the greatest courtly intrigue scenario in the history of the universe, but if the players aren't interested in courtly intrigue and instead want a war campaign, the game is going to fall flat on its face. The DM could return to the drawing board and comes up with the greatest campaign ever written about dwarves defending a dwarven hold, only to find out the players all hate dwarves with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns. Now, the campaign fails again.. In this case, because the DM did not seek player input as to whether or not anyone even liked
Seeking player input is about maximizing the probability of accommodating player tastes and minimizing the probability of running a game that sucks.
Humans have different preferences. I think you acknowledge this.
Whenever SOMEONE, be it the DM, a player, or a third party like WotC (with a published setting), makes a decision in the establishment of the setting, chances are the someone else in the group doesnt like this decision.
"Get player input," does not mean, "Don't make decisions." It doesn't necessarily mean group world burning, or that the group as a whole makes every single decision, and it especially doesn't mean that every aspect of the game must be unanimous. It means get player input. Nothing more, nothing less. In the end, the DM has to sort everything out in order to make something that's fun for everyone, sure, and it's not going to be everything for everyone at all times, but the input is necessary in order to know what you're designing for.
Just a couple of follow up questions, if I may:
How many different groups have you gamed with?
How much of your gaming is online, and how much is sitting around the table?
...I'm just trying to get a feel of how your gaming experiences may differ from mine.
1) Online, a metric ton. Offline? I had a steady group through high school, with a lot of side-games here and there.
2) Lately? With college and related scheduling issues, it's been hard to hold a steady group together. Most of my gaming's taken to the net since then.