Stalking rpg.net again?

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's his entire post, from the thread "What Makes a Bad GM?".  No one called him on it, a few people congratulate him later on in the thread.

I dunno, man.  Plenty of people post plenty of stupid shit to the Internet that I can't be bothered to comment on.  That doesn't mean that I don't find it disagreeable -- just that it's stupid shit on the Internet that's not worth my time or energy.  The fact that you froth yourself up over this sort of thing doesn't speak entirely well of you.

!i!

When I was very young, a non-gamer said to me: "You only feel like you're somebody when you're sitting there at the head of that table."

I think that's the Punani's issue.

The more power a person wields in a game the greater their responsibility to make that game enjoyable.  There really isn't much more to it than that.  The dynamic of the gaming group really impacts that decision.  Maybe that's why the "traditional" model is so successful.  The majority of the group has less responsibility making it easier for them to participate.  Someone like Pundit carries that burden of responsibility easily, whereas someone like me is eventually bound to lapses.  It's better for me to spread some of that responsibility around to keep the game enjoyable.  That may make me a lesser GM but at least I have the understanding of my strengths and weaknesses to build them into the game.  I don't really believe there is one true way.

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't link to RPG.net. However, here is the entirety of his post, word for word:

You're kidding, right? You honestly got "GM empowerment is bad" from that? I think you might want to consider stepping away from the keyboard for a day or two. Or at least lean back and have a nice, calm, long think.

Also, why are you frequenting a board you don't a) have the balls, or b) have the respect to link to? Seems kinda stalkerish to me. Not that I'm surprised, I'm just curious about the reasoning behind it.

For those more interested in hearing and discussing opinions than they are in Pundit's lust / envy / fear relationship rpg.net, here's a link to the original thread.

Quote from: walkerpThis is real life.

Only sometimes.

Quote from: walkerpThis is real life.

THIS!  IS!  REAL!  LIFE!!





And I didn't comment on the thread in question over at RPGNet because I thought it was silly and not worth my time.

Quote from: blakkieStalking rpg.net again?

...really? That's the best you've got for rebuttal?

RPGPundit

Quote from: James McMurrayAlso, why are you frequenting a board you don't a) have the balls, or b) have the respect to link to? Seems kinda stalkerish to me. Not that I'm surprised, I'm just curious about the reasoning behind it.

Ah, and meanwhile, here's someone who makes Blakkie's pathetic attack look good. At least when he said it, it was momentarily original. You're so devoid of ideas you have to imitate him.

RPGPundit

You meant:
Real life? This is SPARTA!

And what I got so far was some guy thought that 'power for power's sake' was a bad GM trait. This isn't the most contentious issue I've ever seen, to be sure. What kind of power are we talking about here? Because let's face it, some games give the GM massive power (even the Amber DRPG openly advocates GM cheating in order to simulate the Elder Amberites' godlike uberness). True, it's a huge generalization to simply say power for GMs = bad, but if you haven't noticed yet, the internet is built on sweeping generalizations.  

Quote from: Old GeezerTHIS!  IS!  REAL!  LIFE!!





And I didn't comment on the thread in question over at RPGNet because I thought it was silly and not worth my time.

Quote from: RPGPunditThey're two different threads. One is about what makes a GM bad. The other one is about the statement: To be a great GM, you must believe that Power ultimately rests with you.

RPGPundit

I've seen a few games turn to shit because the GM let some rulesraping arsewipe of a player lord it over them and the rest of the players. If these GMs had been confident to believe in the fact that they were running the game and that the buck stopped with them, then the games would not have gone downhill.

Quote from: AnthrobotI've seen a few games turn to shit because the GM let some rulesraping arsewipe of a player lord it over them and the rest of the players. If these GMs had been confident to believe in the fact that they were running the game and that the buck stopped with them, then the games would not have gone downhill.

Which is exactly why having GM power built into the system is irrelevant. If the GM has no confidence, it doesn't matter.  If the GM is good, he or she doesn't need the system to tell everyone they are the boss.

Quote from: AnthrobotI've seen a few games turn to shit because the GM let some rulesraping arsewipe of a player lord it over them and the rest of the players.

And the problem remains the same (eet remains zee same!) you have one person at the table who is putting their fun ahead of everyone else's.

It doesn't matter if it's the GM or a player -- that's the essence of what can ruin a game.

Quote from: walkerpWhich is exactly why having GM power built into the system is irrelevant. If the GM has no confidence, it doesn't matter.  If the GM is good, he or she doesn't need the system to tell everyone they are the boss.

That's a nice bit of pap sentiment, that covers up the practical fact that a ruleset that doesn't explicitly state that (much less one that states the opposite: that the GM is NOT the boss) is a ruleset that will make the GM's job of putting a stop to the rulesraping asswipe much, much harder.

It is also a game set that will therefore encourage and increase cases of group conflict.

Or to put it another way, if you REALLY believe that the GM is the Boss, what possible reason could you have to NOT want it to be explicitly stated in the rules? Eh?

RPGPundit