Tony's Standard Rant #2: Disagreement != Dysfunction

[Callan S.]

Yes, but an extension on that wording, which accepts that its just not possible to discuss every game eventuallity (and set rules for them) before the game. Something like "To cover when people have not communicated what they want from the game...because no one realised that situation X would come up and thus haven't actually had a chance to say what they want from the game, in regards to situation X"

[TonyLB]

That makes sense.  Now, where do you think the burden of communication lies?

Is it up to the people who want to threaten something to first make sure that it's "safe"?  Or is it up to the people who want to protect something to clearly mark it as off limits?

[Blankshield]

That makes sense.  Now, where do you think the burden of communication lies?

Is it up to the people who want to threaten something to first make sure that it's "safe"?  Or is it up to the people who want to protect something to clearly mark it as off limits?

The burden of communcation lies on everyone at the table.  This is pure social contract you're talking, now.  It's basically "what do we want to do?"

If it's a new situation, the burden is born fairly equally.  If it's an existing situation, then the person who wants to push the status quo needs to bear that burden.

And hey, that last bit is just me pushing my expectations for social contract.

Is it just me, or has this thread started to meander wildly?


James

[TonyLB]

Definitely.  I do believe we're done here, folks.  Thanks!

If you have further items that you still want to discuss, please do feel free to spawn other threads with more specific topics.

[Callan S.]

Well, if you can forgive me for returning to it, that's why I brought up the 'give them rope' technique. If they reject the rope because they feel it'll take them to some type of situation X, all is well. If they accept the rope and it takes them to situation X that they don't like...well, they are doing this to themselves.

You present the rope. The other person decides whether it's safe for them and if it is, loops it as a noose around their own neck.

Anyway, that one method of dealing with the burden of communication problem that comes to my mind. I think it can still take a player to a situation they don't actually like. But for some reason, if you take yourself there rather than get pushed by someone else, its easier to accept. I can only think of a gamist example right now, but if the GM plops me in the middle of a nasty battle and I die, it sucks. But if he eggs me on to jump into the middle of the nasty battle, and I decide to take that on and then die, then I can learn something from that. I'll think "Well, I chose to jump in...is there anything I could have done differently about that choice that would have made me live?". If the GM just throws me in to the fight, I can't think that, except at a meta game level "Is there anything I could have done to change the GM's mind about this, like throw a book at him?"

Mmmm, now I look at it so closely, it's telling me something. Someone elses choice (choosing to throw me into the fight) wasn't useful to me, because it's so meta game, I think. When its someone elses choice, the only thing I might learn from it is how to change their metagame choice with metagame actions. But when I adopt their suggestion, I make it my own choice. And then I can easily think of ingame reasons that WILL chance that choice. And so I can improve my ingame strategy, rather than my metagame skills.


Side note: please ignore this if I'm confusing again, I'm happy that atleast the last two posts were clear and I don't wish to make things go backwards with this one.

Edit: I was composing this at the same time the thread ended, scuse the add on post.