| From: | The Kumquat <LAYBROWNJT@***.CUIS.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: munchkins and gamemasters |
| Date: | Wed, 23 Aug 1995 11:37:50 -0500 |
cleverly disguised to look like an intelligent discussion.<smirk> I can see
both sides of the debate, and I don't think either side disagrees as much as
they might think....(geez, "sides", he says...everyone vs. Professor Terry is
more like it...:-P) WARNING FOR THE SARCASM OR HUMOR IMPAIRED: The following
post, although mostly intelligent discussion will contain bits which are
lighthearted attempts at livening up a discussion in which the participants are
fond of restating themselves and each other, and quoting 100+ line of previous
garbage. The lack of message quoting and use of spurious comments should not be
interpreted as attempts at flaming, and are just the product of the authors
penchant for contradicting everyone and everything, including himself. (That's
the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! What an idiot..<smirk>) In other
words, don't take offense, its all in fun.
Now, the attacks presented by both sides are, in turn both unfounded, and at
times to the point.(There he goes, contradicting again.) I really doubt that
Mr. Amburgey's point is that rules "bending" or "cheating" should ONLY
be in
favor of the players, and every aspect of the game should be determined by a
vote, as this could quickly lead to a boring time for all... "Oh, we're going
to save the Universe and party with Dunkelzahn and Harlequin, AGAIN?" Rather,
his original point was that the qualities ascribed to players as "munchkinous"
are not traits exclusive to the players... GMs can munchkin too, when they
selectively interpret game contraints (rules, rolls, etc) for the purpose of
making sure events in the game happen the way they were PLANNED by the GM. This
is a real danger, I can say from experience. If the GM always bends rules for
plot integrity, one possible result is loss of player control. I had a bad
experience like this once, when I based a run on a SR Novel, and used NPCs to
"drive" the characters through the plot, so that things happened the way they
did in the book. The end result was I maintained "my world" and "my
plot", BUT,
unfortunatley, no one, including myself, had any fun. I recognize the problem,
but I disagree with the esteemed Professor's proposed solution, while
regognizing its validity. Personally, I like a great deal of consistency in my
world, so I occasionally bend rules to keep this or that NPC alive, or to keep
fundamental "setting" aspects constant, for the purpose of having my world
"jazz" with the world presented by published sourcebooks, modules, and novels.
This does not lead to a loss of creativity, it just gives a boundary which my
stories need to fit in. In my opinion, playing without these kinds of
boundaries is, in a bastardized quote from Robert Frost, "like playing tennis
without a net". In order to keep my world the way I want it, I, as the GM MUST
BE IN CONTROL. Players voting in my world on aspects which affect it could
destroy my "setting integrity", and ruin the game for everyone. For example: I
decide to let my players vote, and they decide to allow cyberzombies. I have
certain problems with this, as the plot I've carefully set up for a month and
layed the groundwork for revolves around the cybermancy concept, and for it to
work, the PCs should have NO knowledge of the techniques involved in creating a
cyberzombie. I now have a problem, I can rewrite the plot to compensate, but it
ends up being a less compelling story, and a less fun adventure. For my style,
the GM should have final say on ALL aspects of the game, but that say is
influenced by player input.(When you're lucky enough to have players that GIVE
any.)
Now that I have given the good sides of both arguments, let me present the bad
side. Attacking either style of GMing is nonproductive, and silly. Making snap
judgements on things you don't know about, i.e. how that other guy runs his
games, or what experience he had with GMs and GMing does not help an
intelligent argument. My saying that my point of view is the only correct one,
by virtue of God-given Right, and you should run your game MY WAY, THE ONLY
WAY, is ludicrous... I, personally, don't like the idea of rotating GMs, but if
they work for you, go for it. If you want to fudge rolls which the players
can't see anyway, for the sake of your "world", go for it. Calling people
"cheater" and "hypocrite", though, is childish, and rather silly. To
Quote J.D.
Falk, "It makes you look like a Butthead." (Hmm... I just called everyone a
childish, silly Butthead... guess that makes me one too... let's call it even.
:-P)
Just My Two Pence.
The Kumquat.
Support Whirled Peas.
