Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 2:20:14 GMT -8
All of this! Seven whole fucking pages because one side of this argument just can't accept that their way is not the only way. This is a prime example of One-True-Wayism. If you don't like dice-fudging or any kind of narrative or setting alterations just don't fucking do it! How fucking hard is it to wrap your head around that incredibly simple notion. I like using simple similes to make my points because it's usually the only way to make sure everyone gets the message so here goes: - I don't like mushrooms so I don't cook foods with mushrooms. To me mushrooms are gross (an obvious subjective opinion) so I don't eat them. - You like mushrooms so you do include them in your meals because for you they are a valued part of a tasty dish (an other obviously subjective opinion). So I ask you, "anti-cheaters" which one of us is right? Me and my dislike of mushrooms or you and your liking for mushrooms. And keep in mind, by your own logic and approach to "debate" there can only be one true and valid opinion. So which is it? And don't try to weasel out of it by claiming that mushrooms and food preferences are different from gaming preferences because they're not. A preference is a preference whatever the subject may be. And if you're going to counter with something about groups and such, what if my whole family doesn't like mushrooms so I abstain from including mushrooms in our family meals? Would THAT be wrong because YOU love mushrooms. Is it literally impossible for you to accept that there are people in the world who have opinions that differ from yours? One of you claimed that they've been accused of "being sad" or other some such. I have no doubt that that had nothing to do with your gaming preferences but with what frankly looks like a pathological obsession with being "right" and being literally incapable of dealing with the reality that not everyone agrees with YOU. It's so ridiculously simple: You like approach A, other people like approach B. So don't use approach B because you don't like it, and the other people won't use approach A because they don't like it.... How much simpler could it be stated? Seriously! In general, its not okay to deceive people. Unless we establish a specific social contract where deception is okay, it isn't. The major issue with people who fudge or cheat is that they never establish the social contract where it is okay for them to do so. They assume it was there to begin with. This was never a matter of pure preferance. It's a matter of ethics. You can't force someone to accept that you are going to lie to them. It's a question of consent. You can't do yours and I do mine because your way is directly breaking mine. If people who fudged dice always had consent this conversation would never happen. Everyone would have already agreed and there would be nothing to talk about. Your arguement is the sexual equivalent to, "Well she had it coming because she dresses like a harlot". Just because we are playing a roleplaying game does not mean we gave you consent. Then we can follow that up with a big abuse of a position of power. Coercing your players into accepting your demands to ignore their wishes because otherwise there will be retribution (being kicked out of the group, etc). Society has advanced a long way to develop a "way" that is true and good. It would be nice if standing up for it wasn't lambasted as being some kind of bigot. Edit: The part about the arguement being equivalent to was more aimed at previous comments made by other people about rule zero, which I realize in retrospect you did not make in the post I quoted. My apologies. I left it in because I feel it fits the theme of the topic, but I wanted you to know it wasn't directed at you.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Jul 8, 2017 4:10:21 GMT -8
Please don't bring up sex here, considering how easy misunderstanding is on the Internet and how much hostility there is on this forum sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by chronovore on Jul 8, 2017 5:41:56 GMT -8
Rule zero is not a thing in all rpg's. To suggest that it is really makes you look like you are the one with the "true way". When I suggest that cheating is not okay, its because I believe in fairness. I'm not interested in playing with someone with a god complex. We all have our role to play in the gaming group and ideally we'd be partners in making the best game possible. Tell me, would you dictate to your partner how things are going to be? Would you insist upon making decisions for them that they were vocally against because you knew better? Just to be clear, I do not agree with your definition of "cheating," because I understand my context to be fundamentally from yours. I also disagree with fairness being reflected by randomness. I'd also like to reiterate that there's a fundamental difference between assuming privilege in the real world and agreeing to sit down and tell a story together in which one participant is inherently more privileged than any other. It's up to the GM to use their privilege responsibly, and looking after the players' interests can involve flexibility. Now, with all that out in the open: Can you point me to a game or games where it doesn't reference one or more of the following? - The GM is the final arbiter of the rules
- When a rule is not present, or cannot be located quickly, the GM should make a judgement call
- Don't let the rules get in the way of your fun
|
|
|
Post by RudeAlert on Jul 8, 2017 9:49:47 GMT -8
All of this! Seven whole fucking pages because one side of this argument just can't accept that their way is not the only way. This is a prime example of One-True-Wayism. If you don't like dice-fudging or any kind of narrative or setting alterations just don't fucking do it! How fucking hard is it to wrap your head around that incredibly simple notion. I like using simple similes to make my points because it's usually the only way to make sure everyone gets the message so here goes: - I don't like mushrooms so I don't cook foods with mushrooms. To me mushrooms are gross (an obvious subjective opinion) so I don't eat them. - You like mushrooms so you do include them in your meals because for you they are a valued part of a tasty dish (an other obviously subjective opinion). So I ask you, "anti-cheaters" which one of us is right? Me and my dislike of mushrooms or you and your liking for mushrooms. And keep in mind, by your own logic and approach to "debate" there can only be one true and valid opinion. So which is it? And don't try to weasel out of it by claiming that mushrooms and food preferences are different from gaming preferences because they're not. A preference is a preference whatever the subject may be. And if you're going to counter with something about groups and such, what if my whole family doesn't like mushrooms so I abstain from including mushrooms in our family meals? Would THAT be wrong because YOU love mushrooms. Is it literally impossible for you to accept that there are people in the world who have opinions that differ from yours? One of you claimed that they've been accused of "being sad" or other some such. I have no doubt that that had nothing to do with your gaming preferences but with what frankly looks like a pathological obsession with being "right" and being literally incapable of dealing with the reality that not everyone agrees with YOU. It's so ridiculously simple: You like approach A, other people like approach B. So don't use approach B because you don't like it, and the other people won't use approach A because they don't like it.... How much simpler could it be stated? Seriously! In general, its not okay to deceive people. Unless we establish a specific social contract where deception is okay, it isn't. The major issue with people who fudge or cheat is that they never establish the social contract where it is okay for them to do so. They assume it was there to begin with. This was never a matter of pure preferance. It's a matter of ethics. You can't force someone to accept that you are going to lie to them. It's a question of consent. You can't do yours and I do mine because your way is directly breaking mine. If people who fudged dice always had consent this conversation would never happen. Everyone would have already agreed and there would be nothing to talk about. Your arguement is the sexual equivalent to, "Well she had it coming because she dresses like a harlot". Just because we are playing a roleplaying game does not mean we gave you consent. Then we can follow that up with a big abuse of a position of power. Coercing your players into accepting your demands to ignore their wishes because otherwise there will be retribution (being kicked out of the group, etc). Society has advanced a long way to develop a "way" that is true and good. It would be nice if standing up for it wasn't lambasted as being some kind of bigot. Edit: The part about the arguement being equivalent to was more aimed at previous comments made by other people about rule zero, which I realize in retrospect you did not make in the post I quoted. My apologies. I left it in because I feel it fits the theme of the topic, but I wanted you to know it wasn't directed at you. Please don't reply to me again. I have you blocked but I'd also rather you not distract me by popping up in my Notifications feed. Actually if you could just block me and ignore me from now on that'd be great. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Monkeyfun Dave on Jul 8, 2017 10:59:45 GMT -8
In general, its not okay to deceive people. Unless we establish a specific social contract where deception is okay, it isn't. The major issue with people who fudge or cheat is that they never establish the social contract where it is okay for them to do so. They assume it was there to begin with. This was never a matter of pure preference. It's a matter of ethics. Just so I understand, your evidence to this is based on what?
|
|
tyler
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 226
|
Post by tyler on Jul 8, 2017 12:10:54 GMT -8
In general, its not okay to deceive people. Unless we establish a specific social contract where deception is okay, it isn't. The major issue with people who fudge or cheat is that they never establish the social contract where it is okay for them to do so. They assume it was there to begin with. This was never a matter of pure preference. It's a matter of ethics. Just so I understand, your evidence to this is based on what? No one brings evidence to arguments on the internet, Dave. Get with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 13:14:41 GMT -8
In general, its not okay to deceive people. Unless we establish a specific social contract where deception is okay, it isn't. The major issue with people who fudge or cheat is that they never establish the social contract where it is okay for them to do so. They assume it was there to begin with. This was never a matter of pure preference. It's a matter of ethics. Just so I understand, your evidence to this is based on what? Never is hyperbole. Some groups (very few from what I have seen), actually talk and develop a contract of sorts before they begin. The majority do not. The GM assumes they know what's okay. The players assume the GM thinks similar what they do. Heartbreak occurs when people figure out this wasn't the case. I've played for 10 years. In that time I've played with many different groups. A GM has never asked me if I was okay with their fudging. They do it or they don't, but they don't ask. My experience isn't the only one, but I think it is representative of the general gaming experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 13:16:26 GMT -8
Please don't reply to me again. I have you blocked but I'd also rather you not distract me by popping up in my Notifications feed. Actually if you could just block me and ignore me from now on that'd be great. Thanks. Change your settings then so it doesn't notify you. That's an option. It's been made clear to me by Tim though that such requests do not need to be respected on the forum. Block me if you want, but I'll reply to whoever I want.
|
|
|
Post by RudeAlert on Jul 8, 2017 13:21:33 GMT -8
Please don't reply to me again. I have you blocked but I'd also rather you not distract me by popping up in my Notifications feed. Actually if you could just block me and ignore me from now on that'd be great. Thanks. Change your settings then so it doesn't notify you. That's an option. It's been made clear to me by Tim though that such requests do not need to be respected on the forum. Block me if you want, but I'll reply to whoever I want. Seriously? Edited.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 13:40:39 GMT -8
Rule zero is not a thing in all rpg's. To suggest that it is really makes you look like you are the one with the "true way". When I suggest that cheating is not okay, its because I believe in fairness. I'm not interested in playing with someone with a god complex. We all have our role to play in the gaming group and ideally we'd be partners in making the best game possible. Tell me, would you dictate to your partner how things are going to be? Would you insist upon making decisions for them that they were vocally against because you knew better? Just to be clear, I do not agree with your definition of "cheating," because I understand my context to be fundamentally from yours. I also disagree with fairness being reflected by randomness. I'd also like to reiterate that there's a fundamental difference between assuming privilege in the real world and agreeing to sit down and tell a story together in which one participant is inherently more privileged than any other. It's up to the GM to use their privilege responsibly, and looking after the players' interests can involve flexibility. Now, with all that out in the open: Can you point me to a game or games where it doesn't reference one or more of the following? - The GM is the final arbiter of the rules
- When a rule is not present, or cannot be located quickly, the GM should make a judgement call
- Don't let the rules get in the way of your fun
That would take quite a bit of time that I'm not willing to spend on this. What I can say though is that your three stipulations do not look like rule zero to me. Rule zero isn't arbitration of existing rules or adapting to a situation where rules are lacking. Rule zero is the permission to change the rules wholesale. If it doesn't work for you, chuck it. It's the same attitude that leads to dice fudging. "This result is boring, I'm gonna change it." The GM might be right, the result is boring. The important thing isn't being right in this instance, it's the methods used to fix it. If it wasn't cheating, there wouldn't be an impulse to hide the fact that you are doing it. While the dynamic between GM and player is not always one of equals, I equate it to being a pirate captain. Pirate captains only had total authority when the ship was in peril. They were the final say when there wasn't time to sit around and talk about a given issue. GMing is very similar. As players we give you the right to GM. If enough of us get angry, we can vote on a new captain to replace you, just like said pirates. The GM's special power ends when the session does or when the players stop granting it to them. I've seen players tell a GM no, that they won't roll for something because no roll is needed. But GM is final arbiter? Not really. A game book can't grant you power just like it can't grant you permission. If Tim is the main game GM and its his house we play at, your darn tootin that Tim can flex his muscle and overrule the sitting GM if he wanted to. I've seen him do it (we're not talking about Probie here, but a different person named Tim). The thing about rule zero is that it doesn't matter. I don't need permission from a game designer to change their system. Similarly, it doesn't matter that it says I'm the big cheese either, because that was never in their ability to grant. Gaming is a social activity governed by social dynamics, not books.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 13:42:34 GMT -8
Change your settings then so it doesn't notify you. That's an option. It's been made clear to me by Tim though that such requests do not need to be respected on the forum. Block me if you want, but I'll reply to whoever I want. Seriously? Man, I wonder if I would have been banned if I said this to Probie Tim? Just following the leads of the moderation on this one. Edited.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 13:43:42 GMT -8
Please don't bring up sex here, considering how easy misunderstanding is on the Internet and how much hostility there is on this forum sometimes. I will refrain from doing so in the future. Your objection has been noted.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jul 8, 2017 14:20:54 GMT -8
Point of fact, @stevensw, I said you could block me all you wanted to, but it would not be allowed as an excuse if I needed to moderate you.
For the rest of you, come on. I'm locking this thread, and I'll deal with clean up and further actions when I get home.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jul 8, 2017 15:34:01 GMT -8
|
|