-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
These situations exist, and the GM is not always going to be aware. I've communicated with other players outside of the forums, drxav, Randy, and I had our famous google talk circle, there used to be the irc channel. Including the GM in all private communication is not possible, and I would argue not desirable. If a player attempts bold play and then has to sub out, then that's just tough. When the GM is unable to enforce a rule fairly and evenly, he should not enforce it at all.
Last edited:
Still the GM stepping in is worse. And as mentioned the GM might not have the full picture either. And might even have a somewhat wrong picture.
Not to mention those people knowing each other IRL. How is the GM to know what randy told Rysz or kaetje the day before or what MC told wombat over the phone?
Except we really couldn't, since MC never told us who he told Ironhead he had scanned. So we as packmates didn't have the full picture on that.
I don't really get why the GM having the full picture or not matters. It's not like the GM is standing up in his GM voice and telling the sub things as a matter of fact. They're sharing PMs that they have with the sub. This doesn't validate any info contained in those PMs or anything like that. It just says, "these are the PMs that your past self was involved in".
*these are some of the PM's your past self was involved in, the ones I know about, all the other ones, well you're SOL.
It's an improvement on nothing. If a player screws up on partial information it's their fault. On no information? What else could they have done?
No it isn't. If the GM can't provide every communication, she should provide none. The GM should provide nothing more than the role and role-related information (scans, hunt order, packmembers, etc). To provide more is to give an imperfect picture of the previous role-holder's actions, which can bias the sub.
.png){kind=avatar}
I think it's part of Wagonlitz-baiting. His programming defaults to he when gender is uncertain.
I had a pretty neat idea for typed up for it, too bad y'all have to wait to find out in the next game (if it will be included).
It was the night you followed Sleepy to the church.
It was assigned 1) MC 2) HC 3) Arky 4)MC and so as deafault. Of course the packs could change it if they wished. This was meant to minimise impact of spies catching the cuplrit.
Yes
Not sure tbh. I'd have had to balance it out with rivalries or some such. I don't think I'd have denied you getting it though...
I know.
I had no problem with that. I just mentioned that that led to a situation were I had to balance the packs.
Nope
He was the only wolf in the council and could have compromised him if he was being asked questions. In honesty though, he wasn't really that active.
I thought it fitted with the cliché one has of an evil scientist. Maybe that was only in my head... hayhem.
I think it was Jackson.
I meant Nautilu.
He was shooting not hunting. But yes, they would have.
So much this. And with emphasis on the bias. Say somebody initiates a conversation where the GM isn't involved and the player subs. Then the GM provides the PMs he knows of and whoever was in that conversation contacts the sub. The sub then thinks that since the GM didn't tell anything about this conversation on this important issue then that player obviously is fishing and things might blow up.
He is the traditional pronoun you use when the gender is unknown; but I have no problem with people using she. We live in an enlightened age with pretty much full equality between the sexes after all.
Could you disclose what it would have been?
Why did you ask people to leave the PM then?
No.
As I said, I might want to use it sometime in the future.
As for the GM giving info thing. I believe partial information is better than no information.
In this case for example not giving Ithvan that information had the potential to ruin his game, while giving him that information causes no harm to anyone.
More than a fair trade off imo.
This. Handing over information even if it is incomplete helps avoid someone gaining an advantage just because the person they are dealing with was subbed.
Moreover, it clear that the GM handing over information is correct, since the only objection we have seen against it is that the GM lacks the ability to hand over even more.
And the rule that Daffius and I agreed upon I think addresses any grievances in the future. It is a shame, though, because as a GM, I like being a part of private conversations between players. I will not include another GM in my conversations ever again.
Agreed, the rule should be clear now.
I think it is now up to everyone to decide if they wish to include a gm on the conversation or not now the consequences are know.
I for one will include the GM on any conversations I have. Should I need to sub out or can't log on, at least that will ensure the game is not unplayable for my sub and I don't ruin the fun of everyone.
I think it is now up to everyone to decide if they wish to include a gm on the conversation or not now the consequences are know.
I for one will include the GM on any conversations I have. Should I need to sub out or can't log on, at least that will ensure the game is not unplayable for my sub and I don't ruin the fun of everyone.