Quote from: jeff37923;546163The Gross Conceptual Error here that Gleichman refuses to address is that people do not have a choice about their mother while growing up, but do indeed have a choice about their GM when in a game - thus they can always leave a crappy GM's game but cannot voluntarily leave their own mother as a child easily.

Mother=/=GM

Children have other options with a "crappy" (to use your phrase) mother. They are ugly ones, far worse than leaving.

Like all analogies however, the Mother-May-I does not have to match completely because no analogy ever does. It just has to share remarkable similarities- which this one does.

Quote from: gleichman;546168Children have other options with a "crappy" (to use your phrase) mother. They are ugly ones, far worse than leaving.

Like all analogies however, the Mother-May-I does not have much completely because analogy ever does. It just have to share remarkable similarities- which this one does.

You are indeed, an idiot.

Quote from: Bobloblah;546026Do you have Aperger's Syndrome? I ask, because you regularly appear to be a high-functioning autistic in these discussions.

Quote from: Marleycat;546059Pretty much this thread makes me seriously consider if Gleichman has some form of autism.  The thread itself? Beyond stupid.

This thread reeks of it, and I say that as somebody that has a touch of the 'Sperg myself.

Quote from: gleichman;546125A child may or may not trust his mother, it matters not. It still must ask permission.

The same with the player and his GM. Only unlike the child he is free to leave the gaming group or not join it in the first place. The reason to stay is solely determine by if they enjoy asking permission or not.


In short:  Do the players enjoy playing the GM more than playing the Game

Oh cool, here's the free space on the Bingo card of this stupid fucking argument.  Another fallacy that needs to go.

Quote from: gleichman;546137To use another example, GMs and players of Feng Shui are also playing that game with such on-fly judgements because that game was designed to use such on-fly judgements in the first place (if I remembering the correct game, I don't have a copy to check).


However if you were using your methods with Age of Heroes or D&D, I'd have to say that you're no longer playing Age of Heroes or D&D.

Ahhhh, there's where you're confused.  Here, let me help:  D&D was specifically designed, from day 1, to work with on-the-fly rulings by a thoughtful DM, and house rules to taste.  It doesn't really work without them, just like a car doesn't work without oil.  This may be why you're having a problem.

Quote from: gleichman;546160Have you had children? If so you should understand any mother who's worthly of title the considers how their child will react to their rulings. It's why they avoid (or should) inconsistent or unreasonable ones- for they want to teach their child to be consistent and reasonable.

It's different not in concept, only in degree when you're playing with the type of GM control you've claimed. A GM who fails at Mother-May-I may lose a player, a Mother who fails at the game suffers far worse.

Another poster already addressed this. So all I will add is the roles of GM and of mother are very different, as are the conditions of their authority. But we are getting lost in the metaphor once again.

Quote from: jeff37923;546169You are indeed, an idiot.

The years on this board have not worn well on you. It wasn't long ago that you offered far more than petty insults in a thread.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546171But we are getting lost in the metaphor once again.

Only because you wish to remain lost.

Do you at least understand now what one possible meaning of the phrase is when you see it? You don't have to accept it any more than I accept "Role-playing not Roll-playing", I'm only asking if you understand it?

Just know that understand or not, you're likely to see it until traditional war-game inspired RPGs disappear from the hobby. For you, that's a bright side- it shouldn;t take much longer at least from boards like this one.

Quote from: gleichman;546168Children have other options with a "crappy" (to use your phrase) mother. They are ugly ones, far worse than leaving.

Like all analogies however, the Mother-May-I does not have to match completely because no analogy ever does. It just has to share remarkable similarities- which this one does.

No, it is a terrible analogy. Which became apparent the moment you incorporated Child services into it.

Quote from: gleichman;546173The years on this board have not worn well on you. It wasn't long ago that you offered far more than pity insults in a thread.

Pithy insults are all that you deserve based upon your arguement. Fuck you. You are intellectually dishonest and only wish to crap up this thread, which you have succeeded in doing nicely.

Go back to your blog and your basement. All you have earned here is derision.

Quote from: gleichman;546175Only because you wish to remain lost.

Do you at least understand now what one possible meaning of the phrase is when you see it? You don't have to accept it any more than I accept "Role-playing not Roll-playing", I'm only asking if you understand it?

Just know that understand or not, you're likely to see it until traditional war-game inspired RPGs disappear from the hobby. For you, that's a bright side- it should take much longer at least from boards like this one.

Of course I understand what the phrase can mean. I was never objecting to that. I was merely arguing that it is a rhetorical hammer, a loaded phrase meant to make people feel like weak children if they give the GM any authori what so ever. It is generally devoid of substance and only useful in extreme cases where the GM is literally playing a game of mother may I with the players.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546176No, it is a terrible analogy. Which became apparent the moment you incorporated Child services into it.

Then I withdraw the CPS part, it's not key to the analogy.

The rest I stand behind.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546179Of course I understand what the phrase can mean. I was never objecting to that.

Good, at least you'll know what it means when I and others use it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;546179I was merely arguing that it is a rhetorical hammer, a loaded phrase meant to make people feel like weak children if they give the GM any authori what so ever.

It only means that your method would make the person using the phrase feel that way.

It has nothing to do with you, and thus you shouldn't take that to reflect on you personally.

Quote from: gleichman;546091And I like to ride rather than drive a car.

And yet, while driving a car is governed by rules, drivers make dozens of judgement calls on how those rules are applied every time they get behind the wheel.

Quote from: gleichman;546091It's not an issue of trust, for example I will sub out parts of the larger battles to my players in order to speed things up basically turning over all my power as a GM to them for that- because I trust them to stay within the rules.

That's distrust, not mistrust. Mistrust is a lack of confidence; distrust presumes dishonesty.

Early on in this thread, when this whole tangent started off, I was kinda with you. I like using minis and terrain to represent a complex situation, as in my experience it aids immersion, rather than dispelling it.

But the more you dug in your heels, and the more stultifying extremes you espoused, the more I realized that your approach is an anathema to me. Your lack of faith in simple human judgement is absurd, particularly over something as trivial as playing game.

I don't want to have anything to do with gamers like you. Seriously, you and others like you are a plague on this hobby, and I wish you'd find something else to do so that you don't spread your irrational, childish hangups to others.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;546209And yet, while driving a car is governed by rules, drivers make dozens of judgement calls on how those rules are applied every time they get behind the wheel.

They drive as well as I do, and are bound by the same laws of physics.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;546209That's distrust, not mistrust. Mistrust is a lack of confidence; distrust presumes dishonesty.

They run games as well as I do, and are bound by the same laws of physics (i.e. the rules).

Nothing to mistrust in either case as physics are in control in both. And in both, they have proven themselves skilled enough to work within those constraints.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;546209I don't want to have anything to do with gamers like you.

You don't have too. And I don't have to have anything to do with you.

Isn't life grand that way?

Quote from: jeff37923;546103Yes it could and it did.

Pat yourself on the back.

I just wanted to take this moment and agree with Jeff.  Gleichman, you're a complete tool.

Yes, it's also the last time in our lives that Venus will appear to cross the sun, from our perspective on Earth.  

I felt it was appropriate to celebrate this fairly unique event by pointing out agreement between Jeff and I .

Quote from: Mistwell;546227I just wanted to take this moment and agree with Jeff.  Gleichman, you're a complete tool.

Yes, it's also the last time in our lives that Venus will appear to cross the sun, from our perspective on Earth.  

I felt it was appropriate to celebrate this fairly unique event by pointing out agreement between Jeff and I .

It's going to be fun watch Jeff explain how he disagrees with you.