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.

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.

It doesn't matter who says 2+2 = 5, they are still wrong (except for very large values of 2 ). 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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I can add one if you guys want.

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?

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.

*blink*

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

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

Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet!

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.

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