Defining the role of the GM and the players, I want to continue this discussion here. Options

[Yerameyahu]

No, you've been saying that it's fundamentally not a GM system, that it's categorically better, and that all GMs are sociopaths. While it's been true all along that all good GMs take input from the players, do not have 'favorites', and that the players can always not play, and that this is no different from having a formal vote (which is no different from 'whining', 'lobbying', whatever).

[KarmaInferno]

If you have a good GM and good players, mature with respect for each other and a desire to make sure everyone is having fun, it really doesn't matter which system you use.

If you have GMs or players that are dicks, they're going to ruin things for everyone no matter what system you use.

So it boils down to personal preference. And not being a dick.



-k

[Mayhem_2006]

So you see, I don't think it's wrong to disallow stuff if those things don't fit your campaign, and even in any consensus game the players couldn't just go ahead and re-allow it.

Sooo... making rule changes and ignoring the players is OK when *you* do it?

[Ol' Scratch]

Sooo... making rule changes and ignoring the players is OK when *you* do it?

Pretty much as predicted by several people.

[Critias]

So you see, I don't think it's wrong to disallow stuff if those things don't fit your campaign, and even in any consensus game the players couldn't just go ahead and re-allow it.

You have just said that you've agreed, deep down inside, with everyone else in this thread, all along. Or, instead, that you're a hypocrite.

[suoq]

What I am hearing.

That one game by the one good GM excluded (and he ran an informal consensus, too, in that he was usually swayed, eventually)

At this point my brain imagines the swaying going like this thread, you stubbornly continuing in the face of everyone else, insulting and accusing, until he gives in.

they just couldn't fathom that I might not quite subscribe to their idea of fun, and they couldn't give me the freedom to have mine, too.

So you were not a good fit with the group, why is this their problem? Find a group of people who share the same idea of fun that you do. If you do that, then the problem you're trying to fix goes away.

they always had their favourite friends who could get everything, or at least more. And you could keep telling them exactly how they could improve their games, but they wouldn't listen.

As we've learned from this thread, "wouldn't listen" translates to "disagrees with you". Just because someone disagrees, that doesn't mean they're not listening. It may mean you're not listening.

The other, more general, problem was that of the whiners: They somehow usually got their way, so basically, if you wanted something - even just a shiny new toy for the character - you had to start whining. And that was the only thing that worked. Sickening, really.

As opposed to the tactics you've chosen in this thread...

All I've gotten out of this is the your "best" way to play is to allow players to sit at a table that's a bad fit for them and have the GM give into their accusations, insults, and bullying until their idea of a good time is had. I'll pass and play non-games like Paranoia where rules like this can't apply.

[Stalag]

All I've gotten out of this is the your "best" way to play is to allow players to sit at a table that's a bad fit for them and have the GM give into their accusations, insults, and bullying until their idea of a good time is had.

Unless, of course, their idea of a good time conflicts with his idea of a good time.

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

Ok, so obviously everyone here is being wilfully obtuse. I've said exactly what I mean, multiple times. You don't get that more of a certain thing is actually more. You don't get what transparent rules mean, and under what circumstances a GM, yes indeed, can make his own. In fact, I'm surprised that half the people here can read a rulebook, what with your poor understanding of logic.

The hypocrites are here, in one big bunch.

[Shortstraw]

Ok, so obviously everyone here is being wilfully obtuse. I've said exactly what I mean, multiple times. You don't get that more of a certain thing is actually more. You don't get what transparent rules mean, and under what circumstances a GM, yes indeed, can make his own. In fact, I'm surprised that half the people here can read a rulebook, what with your poor understanding of logic.

The hypocrites are here, in one big bunch.

Translation: Nuh-uh

[Method]

Alright folks. This thread is going nowhere fast and generating more reports than consensus. I happen to find the subject interesting, so I dont want to shut it down outright. But if anyone has anything new to add now would be the time and if not lets just move along and let dead horses lie...

[Ol' Scratch]

Ok, so obviously everyone here is being wilfully obtuse. I've said exactly what I mean, multiple times. You don't get that more of a certain thing is actually more. You don't get what transparent rules mean, and under what circumstances a GM, yes indeed, can make his own. In fact, I'm surprised that half the people here can read a rulebook, what with your poor understanding of logic.

The hypocrites are here, in one big bunch.

Actually, no, we understand you perfectly. You firmly believe that when you're a player, the GM and other players must cave to your will because you and you alone are the only person who knows the proper way to resolve things. When you're the GM, everyone else needs to shut up and accept your decisions because you're the only person who knows the proper way to resolve things. No matter how often you change your terminology or phrasing, no matter how you want to say phrases like "transparent rules" or "group consensus," you have made your point painfully clear both directly and in context.

You are, very much, a hypocrite. Not the people who see you for exactly who you are, as made evident by your countless posts on the subject.

[Grinder]

Closed for 24 hours minimum.