He said - She said, Why should anyone listen to you? Options

[tisoz]

[Ravor]

Firstly I believe the answer is no, it doesn't really matter. I've known people who were "natural DMs" from the start as well as a guy who had DMed for years and (in my opinion) wasn't any better then the first time he sat down.

Also unless you are planning on sending the Gaming Police to interview the DM's Players how in the nine hells are you going to know whether or not Joe Dumpshocker really has been DMing for decades?

As for why people should listen to anyone on the internet, well that is something that each person has to decide on a case-by-case basis. :cyber:

[toturi]

The answer to "why should anyone listen to you?" is quite simple actually(at least for me). Because someone asked. That someone should listen, otherwise, why ask the question/s in the first place? Unless that question was specifically addressed to someone, the person who asked the question should listen to whoever answers - he might not agree, but he should listen(or read in the case of internet forums).

Most of the time, my opinions are based on the game mechanics and my literal interpretation of them. So if you don't want to listen, it is fine, just like if you are a GM, you do not need to follow the rules.

[knasser]

It doesn't matter who says 2+2 = 5, they are still wrong (except for very large values of 2 :P ). Respect, allegiance or (especially) authority should never be allowed to distort our judgement of what is correct.

Likewise, a resistance to accept something that we know to be correct because we dislike the teller or the manner of telling is also a weakness.

The two problems together do our species endless harm. We should judge things using reason. There is no obligation on the part of any poster to state their "qualifications" unless there is some exceptional reason to do so. An appeal to authority is a very common indicator of a weak argument.

[Backgammon]

"Why should anyone listen to you".. that's sort of like putting the whole concept of an internet discussion forum into question, isn't it?

But the reason why anyone should listen to you, here on Dumpshock, are the same as why people whould listen to you in real life. You value someone or other's opinion, over those of someone else's, based on the history of each people.

As a long time poster here, I 'know' the various other posters here. I know the 'speciality' that some have, such as matrix, firearms, 80's based campaign themes, etc. I also know those that put more thoughts into their ideas versus those that don't really, those that take a more global view of their ideas versus those just posting what works in his specific group's experience.

The specific length of their GMing experience is technically of no value. Once someone has demonstrated through a few posts that he's not an idiot and can think through an idea, than that's all that matters.

Obviously, this leaves the DSF newbie in the same situation any newbie has - he has to prove himself. Walking in here and saying "I have 20 years GMing experience, I'm always right" just isn't going to get you any points. Everyone has to hang around a bit and post in order to have his opinion be valued.

[tisoz]

Maybe the comment hit home with me because I have tried to game for over 15 years, but the longest a group I was a part of stayed together was just 2 years. It seems something always comes along to dissolve the group, or as in a group I started over a decade ago that is still playing the last I heard, I moved away and had to quit. And I have a tough time finding groups to join.

I think I'm an good player and a so so GM, but am I deluding myself? I know I have come across more abrasively on these forums than I intended at times. I even got kicked out of my own game. So with this resume', should I be offering advice? Or should anyone even listen to it? I hope there are ideas that can be taken from some of my posts that prove helpful. Otherwise I am wasting my time responding, because I'm not doing it to show my superiority or to pump my post count on the path to Great Dragon or Immortal Elf.

[knasser]

[Ravor]

Well personally I believe you should continue offering suggestions and allow others to decide on their worth, after all something that flopped horribly with one group might just be what the doctor ordered with another.

Besides, even if your resume' is as gloomy as you've presented it here (Surely you've had good times as well or you wouldn't still be gaming.), negative examples are just as valuable as positive ones for teaching.

[tisoz]

Hey, the thread isn't about me personally, although I kind of steared it that way. I have had a blast gaming and I have had disasters related to gaming. Ask Sphynx about the 'No walls in Denver' episode. ;) I can laugh about it now; I hope he does.

Some of the early posts reflected my thoughts pretty well. (Even the posts directed to me personally seem pretty on target.) I guess even the people who are delusional can present good ideas. If nothing else, they offer a different point of view, get you to consider an option you would never have considered or relate a personal anecdote you would never have believed possible.

[knasser]

We're all delusional. Some disorders are merely more popular with the inmates than others.

Every now and then, someone on this planet goes sane and gets themselves killed by the others for it.

[Ravor]

Ok then, if you don't want the thread to be about you despite your stearing then simply pretend that I was talking about the "general you" instead, the basic point remains the same. :cyber:

[Talia Invierno]

Fyi, the very next post explaining that quote, from Brutal GM'ing, was:

[Ravor]

Yes but the problem is that you are still using the Honor System in order to measure how to weigh someone's opinion instead of judging based solely off that person's own words.

For example how would we really know that Joe Dumpshocker replying to that thread is really a long term DM who has players waiting in line to play in his games?

In fact how would we know that John Dumpshocker who pipes up in order to back Joe's claim isn't really just Joe posting under a different handle?

Questions like that is why I think it's far better to simply take what a poster says and judge him/her based off his/her posts instead of an unprovable claim to authority.

[Nerf'd]

I'd have to agree - the appeal to authority is the first sign of a bad argument.

It doesn't matter how long a person has been running games. The person just starting out may be an awesome storyteller, or may fall flat on his face. Either situation requires the person to learn, and if they can't learn, they don't improve.

So yes, I'd agree with Ravor and Talia - if you want to know how seriously to take a response, go check some other comments they've made and judge for yourself.

[Solomon Greene]

[toturi]

[sunnyside]

Alright from my experience as a graduate student.

Listen to everyone, believe no one.

This is because I've found that incredibly smart people, people with experience and tenure and all that, are still wrong. Not just occasionally, I mean all the time.

And even the lowliest undergrad can have a stroke of genious.

Now in my work I can generally tell right from wrong if I check into it. And in many threads one can fall back on RAW or the FAQ or something.

But even with subjective stuff I'd still go with that. Read all the posts, even at least look at what people you don't agree with say, because today maybe they'll be bang on. Or maybe their bad idea will give you a good one.

But never totally believe anyone until you've checked it out.

[Solomon Greene]

[Talia Invierno]

[Ravor]

Sure, Turn to Goo and it's kin faunting Magical Theory is a good example of RAW just plainly making a stupid call. I happen to believe that the ease which a Decker can hack your cyberware is another, but that is more subjective.

Oh and the fact that RAW apparently isn't totally sure exactly how the Matrix 2.0 really works is another.

[Cain]

[Talia Invierno]

You probably do, however, have to have fired a gun more than six times in your life -- even if five of those did end up dead-eyed bullseyes.

[Glyph]

[tisoz]

[Talia Invierno]

Hmm. This might be an interesting point to remind that the original discussion which sparked the opening quote was a heated argument not over an interpretation of a specific rule, but over the right way to GM a group.

One side held that the numerical RAW was the only valid authority, and anything else ranged from the GM doing it wrong to the GM getting his jollies off the suffering of the other players.

The other held that the numerical RAW was not the sole authority as to the rightness or wrongness of a style of GMing, and that not all in-game situations distilled to a character roll.

(I specify "numerical", because it's easy to overlook that the RAW also includes less quantifiable guidance -- or, if not overlooked, then overruled by the quantitative RAW in all things.)

[Strobe]

[Ravor]

Well although I'm feeling too lazy to double check before bed, I seem to recall a second axis of debate that disagreed over whether or not it was fair to punish a player for not knowing as much about the setting as the DM reguardless of RAW.

However, it may just be my aging memory playing tricks on me again. :cyber:

[Talia Invierno]

True, Ravor ... although the concept of "punishing" can only arise where GM judgement overrules strict numerical RAW. Where the GM subordinates personal judgement to the numerical RAW in all things, the concept of punishment cannot exist, since the only arbiter is the numerical RAW.

Rules don't punish. Only people do.

[sunnyside]

Ok first this thread may be a hair silly, and it's good to have a reference as to what this might be talking about, but don't make this that other argument all over again. That thing went for a ridiculous length.

Anyway for things like that the key thing to remember, at the end of the day, is that there isn't one "winning" forumla. In fact what works for one group may not work for another.

However stuff like that can still be useful because it can clue you in to benifits and potential pitfalls before you get to them.

[Ravor]

Well I'd disagree with that statement because by itself RAW doesn't do anything, it just sits there in a book, for instince in the Technomancer example even if the DM had called for whatever rolls was decided would detremine whether or not the Techno would remain on his feet or not it would still be an example of a DM punishing a player, just like if the DM called for a Perception Test at -2 everytime a character crossed the street without declaring that they looked both ways beforehand or used RAW to decide how long the characters could go before declaring that they had taken a breath.

[Pendaric]

Whether something is good advise is usually situational and therefore requires personal interpretation.
Sadly that in this format every post must be weighed on merit on each individual's personal scales.

The manner of the post obviously flavours the easy of this judgement. We have all seen abrasive and aggressive posts turn free wheeling debate into flame wars. When something becomes an argument for me is when neither side is open to changing their point of view.
On the plus side Dumpshock is much better than it used to be for the baseline polite respect afforded to each user.

Why should you listen? Personal choice and the possibility of help/a useful idea.
Why you need to weigh everything? Because it might not work for you.

[Solomon Greene]

[Caine Hazen]

Being as I've found this discussion to have nothing to do with SR4 and more to do with personal rantings for now, I'll just move it to General gaming. And even though you are all playing nice so far, please make sure this doesn't get out of hand.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[Talia Invierno]

Though apparently the RAW doesn't have inherent value enough for discussion of its value and appropriate role to be considered SR4-related ;)

Edit: Pendaric, thank you for reiterating the importance of mutual respect. It's what has allowed us to discuss this topic at all -- even if our esteemed moderator seems to have missed its existence in this thread entirely.

[tisoz]

[Kagetenshi]

[Talia Invierno]

Did anyone else notice a real rant in this thread? I don't mean just agendas or strong povs: those run rampant in most SR4 threads anyway ;)

[Critias]

I can add one if you guys want.

[Talia Invierno]

Ah, but that would scarcely work, Critias. The difference between unacceptable rant and acceptable agenda may be whether or not those in power agree with you: and we've established that your opinions are popular.

In fairness to Pendaric, he did post before moderation intervention interrupted the pre-existing level of spirited but non-vicious discussion in this thread.

... and after active intervention: what has become of it?

[Solomon Greene]

I'm sorry if my attempt at humor in any way caused this to be moderated or moved, I was just poking fun at "t3h internets" in general, not at any specific poster.

[Critias]

[Talia Invierno]

*blink*

[Critias]

I know. Thinking about a basket full of kittens without fire makes me tear up a little, too. *sigh*

[DuckEggBlue Omeg...]

[Critias]

Got a link? That might've been me. It all sounds fuzzily familiar.

[Talia Invierno]

Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet!

[Lazarus]

[Lazarus]

Man I don't know if anyone should scan what I'm typing. Sure I can list my gaming resume. The longest SR game I played for five years in real time and we had our characters played from 2048 in gametime to 2061. Each got over 1000 karma or there abouts.

Does that mean I know what I'm talking about? Nope. I don't even know what RAW or IIRC stands for. Everytime I see it on the boards I'm too embarassed to ask.

I try to post on topics that interest me because I want to talk about SR because I don't play it much anymore, and I hope that I can make someone else's game enjoyable. I've asked questions on here in the past and people have offered great and not so great advice. Hell sometimes I think I come across as a HUGE d**k when I don't mean to be. Other times I find myself writing posts but deleting them thinking "Dude it's not personal. You probably didn't communicate your idea effectively." or "He's a f**ker and do you really want to get into this?"

As far as being in a gaming group it's like anything else. You gotta find who you can deal with. One my favorite DMs I played with for about ten years he and I used to fight all the time. He even threw a boxed set at me once. <It was the Tales of the Lance boxset I think.> He was a great AD&D DM, but he sucked at SR, mainly because he wanted to play it like AD&D.

One of my good friends was one of the best and worst players depending on which night we played. If he was in a good mood everything rocked. If he was in a bad mood, like he fought with his Ex, then he would go out of his way to cause chaos. (In fact I think he had a character named Chaos in SR. Yeah he was a decker, and a f**ker.) He used to give me fits as GM and as a player. I would go almost insane and he would smile. Good Times. :)

[Kagetenshi]

How do you manage to move so fast? We've been playing three years, and our characters played from mid-June 2055 to late August 2055.

RAW is an abomination. You should not bother to learn what it means.

~J

[Vegas]

[tisoz]

[Fortune]

[tisoz]

I recall the thread. It wasn't me, but I remember when the person made the interjection, I was kind of pleased.

[DuckEggBlue Omeg...]

It's entirely possible my memory of the forums at that time has been coloured by that thread. That it still stands out in my mind is probably a good indication of that, or that there was really was a mythical Pyrite Age in DSF's history and I'm just incorrectly associating it with that thread. I'm not even sure when it happened year wise, my brain seems to think that storing memories chronologically is overrated. I think the forum was brown at the time...

Either way, that thread was very unusual, and mildly disturbing, and I too was glad to see the interjection.

[Kagetenshi]

I never spent much time in the Lounge if I could help it, though I remember that thread somehow. That said, my impression was that the cultural norms there were almost totally different from those in the Shadowrun-debate areas of Dumpshock.

~J

[Moon-Hawk]

[eidolon]

I think you're spot on with RAW showing up here with the release of SR4. It used to be used almost solely in discussions about d20 (mostly D&D), and when SR4 came out billed as "easier to learn" etc. and started attracting the new, younger D&D crowd, it ended up getting used over here.

Personally, I find it ridiculous. RAW is just "the rules". If you want to be clear about the fact that you're talking about rules in the book, just say rules. If you're not, you're talking about house rules. And frankly, if you think you're up to joining in from a "I'm quoting the rules" stance, you should know the rules well enough to know when someone is talking about something that's obviously not by the book. If you don't, what business do you have quoting rules in the first place? (I don't mean "you should know the rules perfectly, but still.) But, it is in pretty common usage now, so oh well.

Again, just my opinion. Nothing official here, etc., etc.

Other "forumspeak" abbreviations I can think of include:
AFAIK - as far as I know
IME - in my experience
IMG/C - in my games/campaigns
YMMV - your mileage may vary

[Ravor]

Well personally I usually use RAW with just a hint of a muttered curse, to me it stands for unreasoned aherence to the letter of the rules instead of the intent of the rules.

[eidolon]

/agree

[Fortune]

I still prefer to use 'canon'.

[Kagetenshi]

Canon�canon��.

~J

[Fortune]

Shhh, or I'll change that to 'a cannon' just for you. :P

[tisoz]

[Kagetenshi]

I remember a truly massive thread identified only by the thread title, "Sex!".

That really about sums up my experience of the lounge.

~J

[Critias]

Tisoz's perception of the Lounge lines up pretty well with my own perception of the Lounge. Pretty much every thread I recall with any distinction and detail, I can similarly recall my PMs and warnings from the mods over. It was a dark time in my user profile. A dark, bloody, time.

[Talia Invierno]

I liked it. It skated the edge of anarchy; and as such, I encountered there povs and lifestyles I'd never have known otherwise. Much of it was alien to me, yes: but then I've always been one for trying to understand how others think.

Every other Internet board I'd encountered before this, well, it was easier to mean well when you're just a few dozen friends who mostly think in the same ways. Almost invariably the strong differences of opinion that led to real tension were reacted to in one of two ways: either the board drew back and metaphorically or in Internet equivalent closed its doors except to like-minded individuals; or the administrators started getting more and more heavy-handed, to the point where abuse of power threads were virtually a daily occurance. One of the classics I've encountered exceeded a thousand posts -- entirely on topic, and with not one non-administrative member losing their temper (at least, on-board).

Another common outcome seems to be administration-by-peer-pressure/community-sanctioned mocking, but that's virtually universal -- even in the animal world, now that I consider it.

The Lounge was as close to a free-wheeling balance as I'd seen anywhere. Edgy, yes, but I did find its tone singularly appropriate, especially for a Shadowrun board -- life-appropriate, not just in the abstract. There's all too few places like that in the world today. And now, there's one less.

For sure RAW wasn't used here before SR4. I've got an "advantage" here: in that I have a clear skip in my life during which I had no access here. Before, SR4 had only just been released. (Remember the deluge of threads as everyone tried to find out its contents from the privileged few who'd managed to score a copy at GenCon?) At that time, no one was using the term RAW. But when I came back, everyone seemed to be using it.

Is it just me, or does the acronym immediately evoke the WWE? (Which could further narrow which demographic originally coined it and among which it caught on.)

[tisoz]

[Fortune]

I liked it.

I found it quite interesting to discuss various non-gaming things with a hugely diverse group of people who all had at least Shadowrun in common.

I enjoyed learning about various world events, customs, or idiosyncrasies that I would otherwise never have discovered, and then discussing them with a group of, if not friends, then at least contemporaries.

I was just as happy with the 'trivial bullshit' as I was with the 'important stuff'.

I learned about 911 while cruising Dumpshock in the middle of the night (Oz-time), and followed the progress through the various threads in the Lounge (among other places) with my fellow 'shockers. This is the single most defining moment of all my internet experiences, and I am sad to see the forum gone, and none of the 'replacements' will ever be quite the same.

[Fortune]

Arrrgggghhhhh!

[tisoz]

[Backgammon]

I remember Lounge thread either being nice places to discuss perhaps some interesting piece of SR-related news, or a private shouting match between a handful of posters. Overall I don't miss it. The 'problem' with DSF members (and Shadowrun players in general, IMO) is that we tend to be intellectuals who don't back down from philosophical fights. That has a way of getting ugly.

[tisoz]

I came to the conclusion that many DSers are GMs who have a bit of a God complex and tend to forget that though they master their own little SR universe, they are interacting with the GMs who are Godlike themself.

This post has been edited by tisoz: Jul 13 2007, 09:55 PM

[Lazarus]

[Lazarus]

[Talia Invierno]

[tisoz]

[Talia Invierno]

It wasn't on these boards.

[Bull]

The original topic was interesting, but the thread has drifted a fair bit. Bring it back inline please. Issues about The Lounge are not exactly Game related (Belong in the Dumpshock Issues forum, at best), plus, we've hashed that out a million times. The Lounge is dead and buried. Let it rest in pieces.

Bull

[Talia Invierno]

Interesting timing, Bull.

Would this be a bad time to point out that the drift happened precisely after Caine Hazen moved this thread out of the forum in which it belonged? (in one of only three posts he's made this month?) Almost cause and effect, wouldn't you say?

I set you a challenge:

Move this back to SR4 -- and we'll return at once to the regularly scheduled discussion of whether personal experience is an appropriate measuring stick by which to measure the value of one's contribution to discussions about the RAW.

Fair?

[tisoz]

[Bull]

The thread got moved because it wasn't necessarily SR specific. General Gaming is still a valid center for discussion of gaming topics. Caine felt it might be better served here, especially since we know there's a (very) small amount of non-crossover between the SR and SR4 forum.

As for my comment above, that was specifically directed at Lounge discussion, which has been beaten to death. I apologize greatly if my attempting to be diplomatic and not specifically name names or point out exactly what was being discussed was off topic. I'll remedy that now.

Stop posting about the fucking lounge. It's dead and gone and not ever coming back.

Better? Now stop arguing semantics with me. I have better things to do with my time.

Bull

[Fortune]

[Bull]

...

I'm gonna let someone else handle this. YOu guys are killing me here. Seriously.

Bull

[Fortune]

Seriously. I'm not trying to be a dick (whether I have succeeded in being one or not is a different matter ;) ). I am just trying to get things clear.

I didn't get the impression that there was a general call for a new Lounge in this thread. Merely a discussion of the type of place that it happened to be. Most of the posts do seem to contain something of relevance in relation to either Dumpshock in general, Shadowrun players, or Shadowrun in particular.

I know that the former Lounge is a somewhat touchy subject, but is it that much of a taboo that even the mere mention of it is disallowed?

[Caine Hazen]

I think the point Bull is trying to make is this; most of the discussion of the Lounge on this thread has wandered away from gaming talk, and more pointedly seems to be a reminiscence thread about what is missed about life back then. Overall that has nothing to do with gaming, SR or SR4, meaning that this thread would be better served by being out of those areas as well. Being as there is no channel labeled "Lounge Reminiscing" it really has no place at all in these forums.

Or I can put this in mod terms:
Final warning, this thread is about who interprets rules more correctly, or how the rules as written relate to how right you are when you post answers to someones gaming questions. Please move this back on topic or the thread will be shut down.

Thank you.

[Adam]

Bull is having a bad day, and I am very busy, so this is my only post on the topic, and it's in my admin voice: this thread is topic-winding and confusing enough that no matter anyone's goals, it will not help anyone -- admins included -- to try and clarify things here.

If people wish to restart threads discussing the various issues brought up in this thread [one thread per topic, please], I suggest that in most cases the correct forum is Dumpshock News, Bug Reports, Feature Requests, & Discussion

However, be advised that I am on a harsh deadline and at least one other admin is out of town this weekend, so responses wil not be instantaneous.

[Fortune]

That's fair enough. :)

And I apologise for ruffling any feathers.

[Critias]

So, in games, how many people can't help but reflexively ignore (or at least interrupt) boxed text? I can't tell you how many times we've had a decent GM give us a boost on initiative rolls because, while he was somewhere between describing to us in exacting detail the bone-crafted throne the evil Necromancer Queen was sitting on and wrapping up the long-winded list of generic, pre-published, threats and megalomaniacal proclamations aforementioned Necromancer Queen was in the middle of delivering, one of us just said "FIREBALL!" and tossed a d20 for Init.

There's just something a little silly about boxed text. The assumption that, upon entering the Necromancer Queen's chamber (bruised and bloodied and battered after hacking and blasting your way through several levels of Necromancer Queen's dungeon) the entire party will stop, catch their breath, and take a good look at what gems she's wearing, will pause long enough to give a fuck about how ooh-scary-evil her throne is (after killing dozens or hundreds of her undead), or will -- hahahahahhahah -- give the skinny bitch a half second to talk shit to them (nevermind waiting for her to point a bony, ring-encrusted, finger at us and screech "Attack, my minions!").

Screw all that. We're gonna get a glance at those minions, gauge 'em by way of quick head count (so we can decide what spells to cast), and then we're gonna start slingin' dice. Published adventures need to learn that RPGers are, by the time they get their eyes on the prize at the end of a long adventure, far more likely to cut to the chase then get in a Mexican Standoff with the head of Arcology security, share a staredown with that head Tir Ghost, or enjoy a tense and likely-poisoned drink after breaking into the back room of the local Mafia's favorite watering hole.

We see the bad guy, our blood's already up, and we know what we're here to do? It's go time, yo.

GMs that are able to roll with that are great. I know a few, locally, that will give us an initiative bonus, maybe even toss us a whole surprise round, because the bad guy is so arrogant, so condescending, so used to being in total control and being able to finish their sentences and control situations -- that us just starting to whip out guns, swords, or spells while they're in the middle of telling us how close their plans are to fruition will just catch that mo'fo with his pants down.

Conversely, I've had GMs that will blink, shake their head, and ignore what we're saying -- then, head down, squinting until they're almost glaring at their page, will speed up their reading and raise their voice to be heard over the rest of us. They'll speed read and talk like a friggin' auctioneer to finish that sacred three paragraphs of italicized or bolded text, because the ancient rituals say that a GM can't possibly leave boxed text hangin'. They live in fear that Boxedtextia, spirit of vengeance, will swoop down and curse their dice if they don't stubbornly ignore their players and kowtow to the writers, or something.

If you ask me, even more than particular gaming experience, the ability to improvise and listen to your players are some of the most important abilities any good GM (or player, for that matter), can ever have. The GM runs the adventure, not the other way around.

[Kagetenshi]

But won't you be doing the absolutely coolest thing, "a pause"?

~J

[Talia Invierno]

Pauses are most valuable when all the players know that paper messages discussing precedents based on RAW and alternate interpretations of RAW at other tables are flying back and forth between a few players and the GMs; and that a few almost insultingly-railroading pieces of boxed text may be gettting a reread and reconsideration as a result, perhaps by some other GM who wasn't responsible for the initial writing of the scenario.

Boxed text does have its place. Most players do like some level of understanding and consistency as to how this part of the game universe is intended to function. Players who refuse to acknowledge it utterly are setting themselves up for a fall.

However, when you've written it, it's hard to see boxed text -- or, indeed, the entire adventure -- in any way other than the one you'd already decided to set down in writing. How do you tell a pair of writers that perhaps a piece of writing which hadn't taken the PCs' memories into account really needed some playtesting and consequent editing, diplomatically: and still have him understand it? How do you tell a writer, diplomatically, that it was the boxed text itself which derailed the players in the first place?

[toturi]

[Talia Invierno]

toturi // the SR bookninja of RAW-Fu // strikes again // hahaha :spin:

[Edited for SR-appropriateness]

[eidolon]

Boxed text and "two-authors thought is should go such and such a way" are the primary reasons that I usually don't try and run published modules. They're great for one-shots, quick games with characters you don't care about, beer and pretzels, or just for idea mining, but running them in an ongoing campaign is just tedious. If you take the time to read up on it enough that you can account for player action and change it on the fly as needed, and it still fits what you're doing, they can be okay.