Hi

Michael B. said: Must be Friday, some folks have too much time... It doesn't take me that much time. I should mention: if the players aren't bought into my PvP approach, I turn to them. I ask them how to make what they want to do interesting, as I think I've said. If they're acting in good faith, then it can be done, and they have ideas. If they're not, then that's a different situation, one I'm not obligated to make work.

Okay I've been reading this whole thread and found it very informative! Thanks for the discussion, it helps pinning down concepts that were eluding me, and answered some questions I've never actually asked myself. There's only one thing I was wondering, and I'll put a quote from Gauss: Socially skilled: fact is many of us are geeks and nerds. Not a category of people known for our social skills. Now, here the question. RPGs are a social game. You're interacting with other people in order to have fun. That should be the basic buy in for any player and GM. It does not require much of you, nobody's asking for perfect diplomatic skills or a character (as in mental or moral qualities) that allows you to mitigate any aggressive behaviour aimed at you or your fellow players. It just requires you to be part of a group, and as such make some sacrifices for the enjoyment of everyone (I grew up with 4 brothers, so I might be more experienced in that than the usual person). If you do not have at least the most basic social skill, why would you even enjoy RPGs? I don't go about dancing ballet and then blame the ballet itself when I fail. I just take the time to learn. (I mean if you don't want to interact with people, then just write, or draw or anything. Cause if you don't enjoy discussion and exchanging with people, you're not going to like RPGs). Sorry if it is not what you meant, but I found that particular phrase very weird. And I should add that up until now I never played in a game where people didn't want to have fun. And when I didn't have fun (which happened a couple of times, especially when I tried to play D&D), I just left and explained why.

The Judge, you are quoting out of context. What I was saying was in direct reference to what you cut out of the quote. Here is the complete quote: HJ, perhaps you have a more select group of players. But, not all players act in good faith. Some want what they want and that is it. There is no working towards a middle ground and even when that does happen they still take liberties. Perhaps the difference is that you may be socially skilled and that allows you to work with your players better. From how you describe things Paul is apparently improvisationally skilled. Do you believe that the majority of GMs have either or both of these qualities? In my 30 years of gaming my answer would be no. Socially skilled: fact is many of us are geeks and nerds. Not a category of people known for our social skills. Improvisation: Many GMs cannot pull together encounters on the fly. They take minutes just to read the monster entry and understand it. It gets worse at higher levels. How do they improvise a 3.5/PF 15th level wizard complete with feats and spells? Hell, it takes most people days just to create a PC. Why would creating an NPC of the same level be much different? It takes hours. As a result game preparation is required. As you can see, I did not state geeks and nerds do not have social skills. I said we are not known for them. This was in direct reference to my statement that HJ may be socially skilled.

Holy walls of text, Batman... this thread sure exploded. Too bad I missed it unfolding earlier today, but I was busy with this annoying distraction called "work". Gauss : You deserve a medal, you should get your own unique achievement medal for your profile. Unfortunately (and I think you finally realized this towards the end), you were up against something akin to zealotry. Which means nothing you say will ever make any difference. Despite their protestations to the contrary, these people are convinced they have discovered the One True Way to play and now they will not rest until everyone else agrees with them. HHJ: Despite what you wrote at one point above, you're clearly not interested in being sold on anything. In one paragraph, you invite people to sell you on "their way" of playing. Then in the very next paragraph you state that you already did play "their way" for 20+ years and it no longer works for you. What this tells me is that you're not interested in having an honest discussion or being sold on anything. What you are is a zealot looking for converts to "your way" of playing and this is your way of drawing them in. Anyway, moving on: Headhunter Jones said: I think the part I bolded above is an unkind characterization of my position. It posits indirectly that I don't "do my job" and casts positive collaboration with fellow players in a game as some form of submission. I point that out because you are normally much more gracious in your posts. Perhaps I caught you on a bad day. :) This is pure gold... You, of all people, taking offense that someone isn't being more "gracious" towards you. Recalling your laughing, sneering dismissal of other people's games (I'm thinking about this thread ), I find it vastly amusing that you suddenly get all butt-hurt when Gauss makes a less-than-flattering remark about your own game. Priceless. I'll just re-emphasize what Gauss has already stated: No one here would really mind your fanatical devotion to your own style of play if only you would occasionally acknowledge that alternate approaches are equally valid. But you don't. Sure, you sometimes pay lip-service to the concept, but you clearly don't believe it. Your attitude towards other people's games (ranging from politely condescending to sneering derision) betrays your true beliefs. I think it's a credit to this community that you don't get called out on your BS more often. Since I've thrown the word "zealot" out there a couple of times now, I'll own up to my own. The difference with me is, I don't beat people over the head with my preferred play style until they finally give up in exasperation. Anyway, I personally run two 1st edition AD&D campaigns, core books only. In the back of the 1st ed. AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide is an Afterword paragraph. It reads: It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer, to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons volumes, you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, your campaign next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as it was meant to be (emphasis mine) . May you find as much pleasure in doing so as the rest of us do! - Gary Gygax, 1979 Well, there it is from the man himself. HHJ, you're welcome to pick apart that paragraph if you like. But considering the writer is one of the game's co-creators, I'm not sure how much mileage you'd get out of it.

Thanks for explaining Gauss . Sorry I've read the whole topic rather quickly and I might have misunderstood a couple of things here and there. I just thought that the fact that RPGs are a social game first and foremost should be pointed out more often. Especially with online games. At the basic level, a RPG is a bunch of people grouping together to have a good time. If you come to a game to impose your point of view on other people (By that I mean without their consent. If you put up rules for this gathering and warn your player before, when they decide to join that means they abide to those rules.), then you're missing the point completely. A roleplay game is what it is, a game. It is meant to be played by multiple people. What it is not, is a way to express your own fantasies and impose them on your players (not saying that you do personally, I just think it is not said often enough ^^). By the way Brett , I fail to see how Headhunter Jones comes as a zealot. He explains the way he does things, poses strong arguments and doesn't shy away from debate. I think the reason most people don't call him on his "BS" as you call it, is probably because that would mean de-constructing his arguments and expose the logical gaps. Which are often not present and that might explain it. I don't mean that I agree all the time with what is said, or that everybody should. But if you don't agree (And let's face it, HHJ mostly explains some basic concepts of RPGs. Though they are not always clearly expressed, we almost all use part of it during our games, whether we know it or not.), don't hesitate to explain your way of doing things and laying down the arguments that make you think it is better (or different) that other ways you tried! And considering your quote from Gary Gygax, it only applies to a particular game, and only expresses his personal views (like all we say here :) ). It is not a rule for all RPGs, and I strongly disagree with some stuff he said (like this Rule 0 people talk about.). I know you're not speaking to me directly, but I thought I'd give you my feeling.

I hope Donovan was able to gain some insight into why some GMs might not be interested in accepting his ideas and why others would readily do so. You're welcome to play whatever monster race you like in my next pick-up game, Donovan. We'll make it work, no problem. Since what was an interesting and productive conversation has devolved into posters airing grievances against other posters, I request the thread be moderated and wish everyone happy gaming.

Brett E. said: Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons volumes, you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, your campaign next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as it was meant to be (emphasis mine) . May you find as much pleasure in doing so as the rest of us do! - Gary Gygax, 1979 Well, there it is from the man himself. HHJ, you're welcome to pick apart that paragraph if you like. But considering the writer is one of the game's co-creators, I'm not sure how much mileage you'd get out of it. Why do people quote this stuff? It doesn't matter what Gary or anyone else thinks about how the game is run, because anything can work with buy-in and nothing works without buy-in. The trick is getting and keeping that buy-in. Is it not the case that people are more likely to buy into something that accepts and adds on to their creativity rather than blocking it?

Ok I am kinda confused by your last post Paul. You say that it doesn't matter what people (a co-creator in this case) says about playing the game yet you tell people that their way is not as good as yours? Well if anything works with buy in then wouldn't it be moot to claim one way works better? Perhaps I missed the point and if so I am hoping you explain it to me. Now I have a problem with people saying that the "yes and" approach doesn't block as it does just in a different way. By sticking to the concept that as long as it is not already covered by established fiction you can state whatever and it becomes canon (lack of better term) as long as you say it first you are essentially blocking anyone that might have had a completely different idea just because you said it first. If people were waiting for a different moment to reveal something about their character and other players step in and do it for them then blocks all the same. I think that we should all be trying to collaborate with the players/DM's as much as possible. As a DM I will say no to something that my player brings up if we can't figure out a way to make it work, just like my players can/have said no to me when I approach them between games about plot hooks or stuff about their characters history I want to incorporate into the game. A prime example of this was when my one group was deciding what the name of their hated foe should be. If we were using the "yes, and" concept it would have been Terror Maw (albino purple worm) however I had them work together and throw out names that ALL of them agreed on and as a result the beast they hunt became known as Klamittiyah. I have never believed that the "Yes and" approach is bad as I use it in my games when it fits, I just feel that sticking to it and nothing but it is restrictive. Now I should mention that I did the "Yes and" approach for a long time when I would play my games, same with not really preparing anything. However I have moved from using it exclusively to a style that uses many different techniques/themes/styles etc. depending on the situation. This is not me saying my way is the best way, I openly admit I am constantly adding to my style as I hope everyone would be. With each group being different it seems silly to remain static. I kinda got off topic there and for that I apologize.

Paul U. said: George said: Paul U. said: I don't have that rule, but I tell my players prior to character generation that their character know and trust each other, and can work together and I ask them why that is. If they tell me "No, my character doesn't know or trust them and can't work with them" I point back to what I already established as true. The question isn't whether they can or do, it's why they can or do. So isn't that the same as not allowing a player to play a certain race ? You are basically saying no to the idea of a character that acts, in certain ways, against the party , which is worse than saying "no" to a race, you are saying "no" to something a player should be allowed to do in character within the limits of, probably, any world... which is act out what they think their character would do, including trying to kill another PC. I can see what you're saying. But I don't believe it's worse. I don't make up reasons why the world makes it impossible for them to make certain choices, I tell them my preference as a GM which is that they find reasons to be a team. How they do that is still up to them, and they can even be complete psychopaths. Some of the best characters in fiction are complete psychopaths, yet the writers use their creativity to make the story involving them interesting. But okay, I'll stop doing that. The target player decides the outcome of a PvP attack, so it's not like psychopath could actually kill any PC who didn't want to be killed I'm not sure if you have been careful at what people are saying but non is "making up reason" they are simply advocating the ability to tell a player that wants to play an "unfamiliar" race that "their preference as a GM is for player to play a more human-like race". Everything else aside, it might just be uncomfortable for the GM to handle certain parts of the game having to constantly think "a 10 feet ogre is with the party... should that affect his movement speed in a tight tunnel/ability to breathe in a smoke filled cave/AC/attack bonus/... etc" and thus the GM might not allow it for the exact same reason you don't allow PVP: He believe that, due to his GM-ing style/abilities, both him and the party will have much more fun if he says "No", much like you are saying "no" to PVP ( A sugarcoated "no" but still a "no" ).

SPOILER / DIATRIBE / MANIFESTO ALERT <Rant> Right here: "You and Headhunter Jones continue to treat this (in your posts) like yours is the only right way. That is what rubs people wrong." My buy in is: Here is my world, this is in fact the setting. Tolkien has a style, George R R Martin has a style, Asimov, Heinlein, The newest 14 year old DM with Pathfinder at the FLGS, the girl who quit 2nd ed to run Blue Rose for her girlfriend gamers and their boyfriends, all styles are valid, but let them be. I like it old skool. I generate the world, you generate your characters. I run the world, you run your characters. Your choices within the settings options determine what happens to you. Conversely your character choices within your character's life, history, adventures, whatever, changes the world. Together, the game happens. Lots of paragraphs tossed in here left and right about control being bad. The Seemingly new Mantra: "Let's be open to everything. Let's be all free, open, and hugging up on each other, and ideas, and whatever anyone can come up with works for the players let's accept it, because it is all about "Yes, and..." " I get it. When I am running Fiasco, and Space Patrol. I know how to do it. I know the how, why, and wherefore of it's development asd a gaming system. It works for some games, some styles of play. Bu t not dfor all, and I posit right here, that that's okay, despite numerous detractors of let's call it "the Gygax Method." I'm not here to make points. I am here to run games. I do not win by posting this. I win by letting people know that the old skool ways are still around, and yes, probably dying, but there was a flavor (That yes, was not always executed well, by all old skool DMs everywhere, by any means) that says: "You like Orcs, Drow, Half-Drakelings, and Kender. I choose not to do that when I am running AD&D. Not because i am unskilled at breaking convention, or my slavish adherence to convention 'Keeps me in the dark about the wonders of 3.5 / Pathfinder, and how it is so utterly freeing. ' " I am not open to all the new fangled stuff. But I am open to a lot. But I also can define to a player, this is what it is. Work with that. If you don't like it, I can't help you. I do not go to an office supply store to buy a can of cat food. They say what they sell, and I say oh, you don't have what I want, well I want me some cat food gaming, so I'll find a DM that does that. I do not tell them oh you suck, my cat is damn hungry, you are the only store in town you should sell cat food. In that case, I figure open up the cat food store, and feed me some hungry cat players. I Just lost 80% of you, I know it. Moving on. Maybe some can relate. When People ask me what D&D is, or "I've played D&D, I like the older stuff, how is yours different?" With my focus, I can say, exactly, it is X, Y, and Z. House rules are AA, to ZZ. If you like it, Join, if you don't like it, Good Luck. A puddle of molten iron floating in a forge has a specific recipe to do a few things. . if you change the ingredients, the utility of that iron can do many wondrous things. it can be forged to make a brittle steel, it can be forged to make something soft and flexible, it can be made into sheets to cover, or a sword to wound, or girders to construct. It cannot do all things with the same recipe. Different people come to the smith and ask, can you do this? Yes, I can. Then the smith makes it work. The DM says, Yes, And... That is where the all buy in lies, as a metaphor. I get it. But the guy asking for paperclips, is not gonna be welcome in the field next to the guy using the sword. But it goes both ways. Swords for the field of battle, paperclips for the office. AND BOTH ARE VALID. I want to be clear that I am not saying the sword is old skool. I am saying there are a bunch of schools, and sword wielders, and office politics, and corporations. And let them be. But there is this ongoing current of If you are not into "Yes, and..." then you Are a "Control freak, Gygaxian style DM Greybeard stuck in his ways, lonely guy with 2 or 3 (if that) players while [Let's hear the golden trumpets of angels and their associated choir in the b.g. thanks sound guy] : Those DMs not living a life in the shelter of Mom's basement (Like I guess I am seen to be, living in the past, like a wierd gamer Roskolnik) that are open to and actively embrace "Yes, and..." are seen to be the Utter Vanguard of open free ideas and intellectual discussion, fighting the oppression of what has gone before." Open to "Yes, And?" Let it all happen? Good, let all games and game styles happen, and LET THEM BE, if that is the truism. I like AD&D 2e, and I run my game the way I want. I am open to players that fit the following: (Lay out world here, which I do, when I am recruiting.) Players say "Yes, and", and join. Or "No, I refuse to be restricted." And don't. Good. BUT I DO NOT SLAM a player that says "Yeah, I won't fit your game." I say good luck. Really, I do. It's not an exclusive club to join my game. I try as much as I can to allow people to join, that fit. I don't wear clothes that are 1X, when I wear 2X. I do not want a jedi in star trek, or a vulcan in star wars. Or a ghul from Stargate in my wild west. I don't enjoy cross genre. Others do. go find a GM that writes that, that provides that. I prithee to all, do not act as if your games are better because you are more open to whatever the hell anyone wants, and I want restrictions. It does not make you better, though you think it does, and press mightily onto the newcomers as an expert that says it is the better path. A different path. not better. I don't think conservatism is bad, yet there are at least three in this thread that seem to think so. Good for you. Don't step on me, and my style, thanks. People have fun in my games. They have fun in yours. Let it just... be. I have seen way too many players who are not honest in why they play. This was noted in the thread way above. I want to respond to it. So, "Yes, and" is just a big open door for them. That the GM who does not know how to deal with is treading a slippery slope of ice, where this guy comes in with a game wrecking concept and a blowtorch to make it go into avalanche mode faster. And yeah an avalanche can be exciting to watch. Dramatic, energetic, But rebuilding after it is over, it can take a long, long time. And the player who heated it up to melting and boiling point is loooong gone. Filter that before it arrives. I see that as more than sensible that aids the others who have agreed to play, agreed to the social contract, rules all of it. Why do people play a social game like D&D? Multiple and varied, not just because "I got a cool orc as PC concept" that will tell an epic story of the downtrodden who rose to the heights of influence. Some can pull that off. Many want to just blow stuff up. Many really just want to say (like the scorpion crossing the river) "Ah, I have a whole world that hates me, I'm an orc, they attack me for being an orc, I am merely DEFENDING MYSELF. Don't blame me, 'It's my nature.' " They typically start by trying to attack the dwarf PC with "The racial hatred of Orcs." "Before he kills me, I know he would've, I just KNOW IT." This despite the GM saying, Orcs are anathema to the setup. Please no orcs, thanks. "NO, EVILBADSTUFF GM! I want to play an ORC OR YOU'RE A BIG DICK OF A GM FOR NOT LETTING ME, YOU ARE A CONTROL FREAK. A Bunch of Smart Gms who use big words said so in a thread, one time, or five times! So there, I'll find a game that is more open to my need to be an orc!" Good, go find it. Go forth and run it. I like what I like, and yeah it's conservative and I have been called many names. I have been told I am too restrictive, I'll never find players, my game sucks, I am a control freak GM, just like Gygax. I tire of it, but I keep running my stuff for those that can agree on the contract, GM: This is what I offer, play here if you like that. Player: Yes, or No. This is my concept, does it fit? GM: Yes, or No. Player: Great, I'm staying or going. Or flipping it around, Player: I want to play an Orc. DO YOU accomodate that? GM: No. So be it, find a yes. Good luck. Three guys in this thread will run for you. Post in LFG, ORC PC PLAYER WITH COOL CONCEPT SEEKS GM. RARE @@P, LOOK! Not all ladies want to date all guys. Or vice versa, yet the race has propagated for 2.5 million years. Some prefer to be alone, yet are not lonely. I don't think I am "a lone GM struggling in the darkness drawing dungeons by candlelight awaiting the day Everyone will see my true damn glory." But I do feel put upon, by people saying my struggles to play the game I want are not valid. I do not say that those guys are doing it wrong. But I do not do it that way. What I am saying is wrong is telling me, "I'm wrong for doing it my way." I still manage to get players. Good luck to us all. I wish we had a block function. People could add me to it, when the above bores them because it is written in a rambling style that doesn't quite capture the finer points of internet style argument and all of those forum warriors type of postures. I just want it to be known that it's damaging to the community to continually run into this "Yes, And.. is superior" jazz, because it "is free and easy and open" AS IF IT WAS TRUE, that free and easy and open was true in all cases. Why the hell do countries have borders, and patrols? No all do, certainly. But many choose to. And that is all valid and a choice for their individual government. I personally am not going to visit North Korea voluntarily in my lifetime. Good for me, good for them. I'd like to visit australia, but if in my application they say, no gamers allowed, Okay, I'm not going. Done. ALL STYLES ARE VALID FOR THOSE WHO AGREE To The Contract to play there, with that GM. Such contracts are laid out well ahead of time. And it is not the invisible ink of Mephistopheles, with the surprise catch that steals your damn soul. It's a D&D game. Open to those who want it open. Conservative for those who want some constraints. Good for US ALL, if we can agree to not be so negative to each other. We are very rare here, the DMs, so many players seeking DMs. Look how many threads are 4 players seeking 3.5 3 guys seeking pathfinder Gm. I cater to old skool 2e. Let's not drive each other away. You are not better for Running Pathfinder, or Traveller, Or D&D, Vampire, Boot Hill, Gamma World, Ashen Stars, Alternity, Top Secret, Star Trek, James Bond, Star Wars (of 3 flavors now). Nor am I. We are all GMs. I would posit let's all get along. But I know I am not being heard because it was decided "We do not need a GM, we need rules, use the rules book, buy the books, sell the books, read the book. Have a player group that needs a guy to buy and read the books, you need these books, you do not need a Control Freak DM, that Makes it up as he goes. that will not sell books, so let's press that. oh about 2003. PS here's the revsion of that first set of books, buy it. and buy the re-release of it. </Rant> It's just like the edition wars on WOTC forums. Agenda. See it. Tail wagging the dog. Luck, have fun running your games. Don't tread on me, or my old skool ways, thanks. -James H. Jenkins Roll20: All Pittsburgh Must Be Eaten Roll20: AD&D 2e Birthright Style Tabletop: Star Wars SAGA "As Darkness Falls"

James you get +1 for mentioning Alternity as that game was hella sweet.

Well, James, like you said control is not inherently bad if your players agree to it. If you put all that upfront and your players have a good time, then I don't see anything wrong with it (No orcs in my game, or whatever you specify). What I don't like, and it happen quite often, is GMs acting against any original ideas. That forces you to play against a person, and that's not the goal of a RPG (unless specified before, or in the rules of the game). And by original ideas, I do not mean ground breaking stuff (Like going on a serial killer rampage in a fantasy RPG. When we start playing D&D the usual contract is that you will not butcher everyone in front of you. There may be games that expect that behaviour, not D&D or most RPGs), I mean solutions that you did not foresee (and that happens all the time), or people playing in a different direction than what you expected. If you force them back on tracks or prevent them to act based on unilateral decisions (if you did not warn them that acting in a certain way would not be tolerated, or did not tell them that you were rail roading for a bit), that's where control is bad. Again if your players agree to it, or if you're happy to change them every week, good for you, enjoy it. It does not mean we don't have a right to warn people against it. And thanks for the post, James, there's nothing I don't agree with. But I like to remind myself of the dangers of controlling everything. Limitations are good when they're all agreed upon. To go back to your frontiers example, they are a fine human construct when everyone agrees on it . When people contest that or do not agree on the nature of those frontiers beforehand, it leads to bloodshed and the horrors of conflict. We've seen it quite often in Australia, Western Africa, South Africa, etc...

Judge, I agree 100% with what you just wrote. If the scenario is such where the GM expects the party to cross the bridge, and it's a DC20 to get across without falling into the rocks below, and the party says "We go around", and the GM says no, that's 20 miles out of your way, and the party says well we go 30 miles. And the DM gets jacked off at that, that's a prime example of not being open to new ideas. Or if the party levitates across, or flies, or some other thing. I Design with as much flexibility as I can, and if the party comes up with a novel solution, it happens. My problem is being lumped in with wrongbadfun DMIng when all I want to do is restrict character classes, and by running 2e restrict feats in 2e because it is 3.X. But I do like to run Star Wars SAGA, with feats and 5 foot step and all of it. But that stuff doesn't fit my fantasy, so I don't use it. I let people know in advance, I have level and class restrictions, to keep a specific flavor. It is true I could open it up to half drasons or ogre PCs, but I do not want to see those stories. And I let people know, it's not something I want to deal with. not because I am unskilled, not because I don't know, but because I know how, and choose not to, and if someone doesn't want to play, then find a game more to their liking.

James J. said: My problem is being lumped in with wrongbadfun DMIng when all I want to do is restrict character classes, and by running 2e restrict feats in 2e because it is 3.X. But I do like to run Star Wars SAGA, with feats and 5 foot step and all of it. There are no 5' steps in SAGA. The system uses withdraw for a similar effect. The simple reason there is no 5' step is that the game is balanced around the full attack action normally only giving you 1 attack with no iterative attacks. It requires a heavy feat or trait investment to get more than one attack per round and not have ALL the attacks come with a high penalty. That's where it differs from d&d 3.5, and it's a huge difference indeed.

I would like to request functions for forum blocking posters who profess being open to everyone's ideas all the time while simultaneously passive-aggressiving the hell out of anyone who disagrees with them as being unskilled, uncreative, or cruel because their approach is different. Also the ability to give a cookie to Gauss and James J. Also an autotranslate function so the term "buy-in" can be conflated with whatever inappropriate pseudo-definition is most convenient for people who overuse it. Also an autoredirect to the perfect RPG for players who cry when told "no."

Soft, you are of course, correct. I use it more or less the same way, different names, all the systems blend together. thanks for pointing that out. I don't want to give out bad info, or terminology.

Gauss said: You are right, I missed your limiting statements in this particular thread. But frankly, you have made a point of indicating to people in many threads how GMs should always have player buy-in. I interpret this as saying the GM should bow to player whims rather doing his job, running the game. In D&D style games the GM is in control of the game, he is the judge, jury, and executioner. Hmm, i finally got around to reading some of this thread. I cannot stress how wrong the last statement is here. Why do we roll dice again Guass?

EDIT: Not a very useful post, deleting it.