[D&D 3.5] (Dexcon) Final Fantasy and the Art of Railroad Maintenance

[Ron Edwards]

Hey guys,

I think the thread topic has actually been dealt with, and in the interest of not letting D&D threads turn into whole forums of their own, let's call this one done. Bill, let me know privately whether this is OK with you. Everyone else, assume it's closed.

DocMedia, I encourage you to start a thread on trusting/not-trusting players based on some play experiences of your own. Gareth, you've made your point, now back off and let the new guy figure out his point without getting all bent out of shape about it. You don't get to call "rude" here; that's my job.

Best, Ron

[greyorm]

I wasn't aware trusting your friends and collaborators in a shared creative project was a "just a preference" that can be abandoned or restored at the drop of a hat. Non-trust of the other players at the table is a serious problem. What else have we been talking about here for years if not this: trusting the other participants in play. Isn't that foundational to everything else we've explored in terms of defeating group dysfunction?

So, yes, I'd go so far as to say not trusting the players is a dysfunctional behavior. It is also an argument -- the one Wade recounts -- I've heard numerous times over the course of the years, though whether it has anything to do with Bill's experience at the Con is another matter entirely. Without knowing what the inside of the GM's head looks like, I'd say it wasn't a conscious choice, but fears of "Ohmygod, if I let them do something other than what I've planned or envision, things will be RUINED" are certainly feasible as an idea that lurks in back of the minds of many GMs and prompts them to act.

Many times it is supported by experience, because when the GM did loosen up the reins that one (or couple) times, the players went wild on him and did do all sorts of weird and game-breaking stuff. But of course they did! That's a pretty natural behavior when we're talking about gamers who otherwise play in the mindset and style common to many groups (TITBB, turtling, Illusionism, et al). Of course they did that, you've just set them loose into alien territory where the old "this is how play works" rules don't exist any longer and new ones need to be hashed out, consciously or unconsciously, such as: "we will all try to make the game interesting and coherent."

It's like expecting no one to cheat at poker when, up until this game, you checked their hands every single time to make sure they weren't cheating. When they do cheat after that, because you've abandoned the restrictions, using it as "evidence" that players are untrustworthy cheats is a bit gonzo. And why the hell would someone play with a group they don't trust anyways? The only reason I can see doing it as a GM has to do with a need to satiate the ego and elicit praise from those under your control.

And frankly, arguing that three people cannot maintain the "consistency" of a game together...bullocks. I think that's been disproven time and again with numerous Actual Play accounts and a variety of games and sessions where just that happens: everyone maintains the consistency. But if control is what a person is really after, then write a book. That way you don't have anyone impguning upon the consistency of your vision.

And if a person desires social appreciation for the consistency of their personal, singular vision, hold a public reading of it to them.

[Ron Edwards]

Damn it.

1. Closed means closed. The software prevents you from posting over my closure post by accident. There is no accidental cross-posting any more. Don't post when I've closed it.

2. Raven, you know better than to take Gareth's bait like that. You just responded as predictably as a three-year-old to a shiny thing.

Now it's closed and locked. That's the fault of the two of you.

Ron