On 2009-04-18, valamir wrote:
Vincent!...that might be the key source of disconnect!
I'm sitting here simultanously shouting "Eureka at last" and being profoundly disappointed.
For me personally I can't reconcile these two things:
1) Maintaining internal consistancy / making the world seem realistic / preserving the genre tropes is very important to me and something I value highly in the game I'm about to play.
2) I'm willing to completely cede all responsibility and authority for doing so to someone else and 100% go whereever they lead regardless of where that is.
For me...if its really important to me, I'm going to want—expect—a say in how it goes down. If I don't care whether I have a say, if I'm willing to just let a GM do whatever...that pretty much means its not that important to me and I'm really not into it.
Like the time I played OctaNe. Completely ridiculously stupid plot...but because I totally wasn't into the gonzo wierdness anyway I just let it go and played along waiting for the game to end so I could go do something else.
So when you say: "Well, in Storming the Wizard's Tower in particular, the game's world's internal logic and causality isn't communally owned, it's the GM's. Bob's obligation (his "recourse") is to reevaluate, from the ground up if necessary, his own sense of how the game's world works. To bring his own sense of reasonable causality into line with the GM's. At the very least to extend the GM every benefit of the doubt."
My reaction is "fuck that shit". If that's my only recourse, then I can't see why I would ever want to play that game...at all. I'm not saying I'm a control freak and want to be able to say every single little thing...but if something winds up being important to me I'm going to want more than just the expectation that I have to be the one to change my mind.
I mean, here's me totally jazzed, totally into it, and totally not able to exert any influence or have any input into the very creative stuff that has me excited? I'm Totally at the mercy of the GM's whim? I can do nothing by rely on the GM to be a "good GM" and take care of his players? I have to put the sole responsibility for keeping me happy in their hands and hope they throw me a bone from time to time? That sooooo does not sound in the least bit fun to me. I didn't accept being relegated to some junior participant role even when I was a dedicated sim-head old schooler.
So yeah. Pretty much everything I've said in this thread was predicated on the idea that if the internal causality and reality and tropes of the fiction was important to everyone...then everyone should have a hand in making them come to life. And thus there should be a way of dealing with it when the people who have a vested interest don't agree.
If you're now saying that isn't the case...that put up and shut up is the expected player mentality to play...I guess Ima gonna take a pass. Thanks for sticking with the thread so long though.