thread: 2009-05-13 : Now where WAS I...

On 2009-05-14, Callan wrote:

Is this a thread about specific games? If not...
"Example: Notice how stupid this would be to actually say: "I empty the cylinder at him. Hey GM, am I shooting a gun at somebody?" That call isn't one that anybody needs a GM to make. Any group is perfectly capable of interpreting "I empty the cylinder at him" to mean shooting a gun at someone, no GM required."

If I were programming a computer game, I would have to tell it that emptying a cylinder is classed as 'firing a gun'.

So you do need a GM, or more precisely, a human, to make that call. Somebody has to do it. I don't see roleplay as getting away from what computer game design faces? Does it?

The problems arise when it's not clear exactly who is to do so. Though if no one contests/challenges you declaring your cylinder emptying is gun firing, then this problem doesn't show up - atleast for now.

Disclaimer: If I'm more pointed in this post, it's because I've thought were talking about facts rather than goals. Someones goals can't exactly be challenged (well, maybe if they hurt people, but otherwise no), but asserted facts aught to be challenged and tested. That always takes more 'pointiness'. :( And if this is a thread that has required reading/play, then I'll leave it there (just please don't hit me with any more facts after I've stopped so as to forfil an agreement on needing to have played the right games and can't contest the fact - that's no fair!)


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":