i mean holy shit, you guys even liked hawthorne, i think, but we barely even managed to get it into the polls before the moral outcries for us to restructure everything started
but we said "shut the fuck up we got this"
and you did
and we did
and it was good
@Imca: NDA?
oh wait nondisclosure
yeah but i didn't want to tempt metagaming
remember when pentigan did the thing where he just assumed he knew the endgame and the twists and kept trying to play "to his advantage" because of it? i'm describing this badly, but you know the thing
edited 12th Sep '15 10:01:15 PM by WonderSquid
In truth, Bcom, I really do think we should err somewhat on the side of the GM's judgement. They know what works, and what doesn't, and shouldn't have to bend over backwards unless they demonstrate substantial incompetence. Which, so far, only Strig has really done.
What if there’s no better word than just not saying anything?yeah, I guess I still am a bit paranoid because I've seen enough really really bad G Ms in my past that I tend to be more on the players side.
but then again the idea of sides probably isn't a smart one since everyone is supposed to be on the same team in the first place ._.;;
No promises, Spaz. I didn't buy all this rope to make a tyre swing.
What if there’s no better word than just not saying anything?@Norm:While I do agree the GM should have the final say, I will say that the GM doesn't know everything about what's going on. I mean they certainly know what's happening with the plot and what might set that off the rails but following the structre set in the GM's head is not always guaranteed to be what's most fun.
The player however knows what's fun and what's not, they know how events are affecting them and their characters. So they aren't totally ignorant.
An example is the very plot we're on right now. If Duff and Riv had kept quiet about this problem, not saying they should have, everyone would have most likely said that they had a lot of fun with the plot. Why? Because its been consistently entertaining on all fronts even though Rivuff were scrambling behind the scenes.
PM box is Closed, Indefinitely Friend Code: 3368-4181-6850Edit ninjad but I won't remove that reaction image because I like it
edited 12th Sep '15 10:09:57 PM by Trip
There should absolutely always be communication between GM and player.
A good GM will take all things into consideration.
A good player accepts final judgement of the GM.
Both the player and the GM need to work for that mutual trust. And that means occasionally letting a few gripes slide.
What if there’s no better word than just not saying anything?@Imca: that's what you think
why do you think we try so hard to get into the gm position
@Jam: Yeah, players definitely shouldn't be disregarded or anything.
I guess I'll just echo the sentiment that it should be a dialogue, not one way or the other.
And the GM of course has The Final Say, which can lead to people thinking "I didn't vote for this" perhaps in the case of Imca.
I think one thing that perhaps has to be done is to make very clear the "rules" beforehand.
Of course to an extent that's impossible because we're not omniscient, we can't predict everything coming.
Basically, the player say comes, to an extent, from which plot players decide to vote for. Because of course the players themselves won't agree with each other over everything.
This then leads to once the GM is voted in, by and large What They Say Goes, because they were voted in, and we, in the end, do need one voice to settle disputes.
GM thus has a responsibility to make The Rules clear, otherwise people will go "wait what I didn't vote for this"
I think I kind of lost my point somewhere.
edited 12th Sep '15 10:14:08 PM by ThanatoSeraph
@ Pyro: Its... what I know actually, both from personal experience here, and G Ming experience elsewhere.
Even if a problem is vocalized it is hard for either party to quantify.
I about left over the whole Hawthorn thing Spazz brought up, actually I think I did leave for like 2 weeks.
Yet it could have been prevented by a bit more communication.
Trust only goes so far.
Bad experiences in the past don't translate to guaranteed future bad experiences.
All that's gotta go down is that people need to speak up when there's an issue.
On both sides. In this case, the gms having trouble working with too many dueds. Or it could be the players disliking something.
When we honestly try to fix things, stuff gets done.
It's getting to that point that's the tricky part.
edited 12th Sep '15 10:19:52 PM by ramuf

(@Norm) ah alright. sounded like you were leaning a bit much on the GM's side but that's my mistake.
cause really both parties are needed, without the GM there's no plot. without players, who will play the plot?