RE: [Fwd: Re: The T'or Ruling]

[Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>]

> [Daniel Lawrence]  Why are we getting into heated debates about a 
> GAME that we play to
> have fun? You are right, we can ignore and/or delete mail we don't 
> want to deal with.... 
> but that very act is often used to say that we are being unresponsive 
> and wrong.  AQ used to be a lot more fun. 

You should see soccer games in Europe! Heated has nothing to do with
with if its a game or not. If it did people woulnd't watch hockey games.
You only put energy into what you care about. A lot of us like gaming
therefor we put a lot of energy into making it better.

> When playing a game, like monopoly or Risk... it would never occur 
> to me to turn to one of
> my friends and say "Your Cheating!" It would take GREAT provocation 
> before I would do
> that, like they would have to be actually cheating.

And get caught. :) And no one really cares about monopoly or Risk. Put
some money on the line, maybe a lot of money, make it something you care
about and the same behavior will start being exhibited.

> When something goes bad for an adventurer during a game, it seems the 
> first thing that
> happens is that adventurer's player starts casting around to point 
> the finger at the GM
> that misplayed the rule that caused him/her the bad fortune. 

If a rule was actually misplayed than the players finger is not
misplaced. The fact that we are so quick to point that finger only
says that its a common occurance. I don't really care about blame
half the time. I want GMs to admit they made a mistake and endeavor
not to do it again. This GMs are infalliable go piss elsewhere attitude
is detrimental to gaming. I'd like to see infalliable GMs. That would
be great and I guarentee they would never have the finger pointed at
them. We have a group of GMs and I believe we are all answerable to
one another and to our players. As you say, it is only a game, why
maintain that GMs are infalliable and unquestionable if its only a
game? We need to discuss rulings. And there will always be dissent
because GMing styles differ.

> The 
> assumption of "BENDING"
> is made and espoused in a mostly public forum (like this mailing 
> list). The GM is assumed
> guilty first, and then the burden of proof is placed on them to 
> justify their actions.

No assumption of guilt is made when someone is asked to Justify.
If the assumption was guild no one would ask for justification they
would say you are a screw GM and stop playing under you (Dana Hoggat
jumps to mind). Asking the question implies that I would like enough
information to form an opinion and that you are absolutely being given
the benefit of the doubt. Dodging and refusal to answer imply guilt.


> When a player 'cheats', fudging dice or changing things on their card... 
> we as GMs have to
> catch them in the act before we can act on it. Why is this different with GMs?

It isn't obviously. No one caught Keith's character in the act. Lyle acted
on it 5 real months later... based on the evidence of the act. If I hear
about a GM breaking the rules or making bad calls of course I'll gripe about
it. That person reduces all of our credibility.

> It would never occur to me to watch you GM a game... and then run 
> around to all the other GMs
> pointing out your 'BENDS' and talking you down. If I thought you had 
> a difficulty, I would talk
> with you and find out what was up and try to handle it without this 
> public gossip.

Dan, I would welcome the opportunity. If I make a mistake in game, players
correct me right then and there. If I agree with them I correct my decision.
I like to think that in this way I'm viewed as pretty fair in my rulings. I've
"bent" a good number of people. But they knew why they were being bent and I
hope viewed the bend as appropriate in force, timing and justification.

I am not and have never been infalliable (surely I will be one day). I've
had one or two games break down into rules arguments. Not fun for the 
uninvolved parties, but there were no hard feelings from it. If it happens
before break, you just call it there and let the uninvolved parties go for
natchos. If after break tag another GM for a minute while you carry on
the argument. Not that big a deal. After a bit of discussion a concensus
is reached and a new precedent is set as far as rules interpretation. And
that mistake doesn't happen again. And really once you have a set of rules
in play that they players and GM are confortable with, rules questions drop
way, way down. Rulings on the other hand...

There will always be rulings that someone in the party believes is bad.
This can be reduced with a consistent gaming group because everyone
knows how everyone else will react to things. In our much larger, and
more diverse, gaming group this isn't a real possibility. We not only
have to strive for rulings that are fair and reasonable to the players
but that are consistent between GMs. Big job. Not a job we can do at all
if we aren't willing to do two things:

1) discuss our rulings. The rules basis for them and our intents and
   motivations.

2) Document these rulings for the future.

I think we are, currently, attempting to make strides toward #1. Number
2 is pretty worthless until we can get people to go along with #1. When
that time comes and the majority of GMs on this list agree to openly
discuss their rulings I would be more than happy to become point for
item 2 (that is writeup everything and keep that list available for anyone
to look at).

In fact, I'm officially calling for a reforendum. Any GM who agrees
with the above spew and is willing to discuss their rulings in keeping
with item #1 (above), drop me a line. Lets see how far we have to go
before we can start documenting our rulings and move toward GM
consistency.

						-Steve