Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[kyoryu]

Strongly disagree.

Look, humans are idiots. They can get all bent out of shape if you let them show their idiocy before correcting them with a rules quote. Or if you let them show their idiocy, and then, later, someone else looks it up / talks about their session on a forum, and learns that their GM is an idiot. The best tables, nobody cares who gave the rules quote - when a rules question comes up, the person who knows the rules quotes the rules. And, when two people both think that they know the rules, but disagree, you look it up.

The alternative is that the GM loses face when the rule becomes known - or, worse, tries to save face when the rule becomes known by reconning reality, or spontaneously generating house rules . And, in the modern day of social media, forums, etc, it's safest to assume that the actual rule will become known.

Of course, creating a good gaming environment, a culture of win, is not exactly your strong suit, Talakeal. Nor is reading other people to determine what their existing culture is. So your best bet may be to very explicitly ask about anything that might be an issue.

That said, you've gamed with this guy before, right? Has he run anything before? This might already be a solved issue that we're over thinking.

You're not wrong.

However Talakeal is in the situation of being hte last GM of the group, which means that it's a lot easier for there to be a perception that he is trying to GM the game from the player's seat.

I think what you're saying probably makes sense for the rest of hte table. But specifically for Talakeal, I think it would be best to be a player and only offer input when asked, at least initially, until it has been made clear that he's not trying to run the game for the new GM.

[Quertus]

You're not wrong.

However Talakeal is in the situation of being hte last GM of the group, which means that it's a lot easier for there to be a perception that he is trying to GM the game from the player's seat.

I think what you're saying probably makes sense for the rest of hte table. But specifically for Talakeal, I think it would be best to be a player and only offer input when asked, at least initially, until it has been made clear that he's not trying to run the game for the new GM.

I don't disagree - that is probably the correct answer. But if Talakeal goes in with that attitude, players/GMs - especially ones who know him - will interpret it as Talakeal sulking (something like this happened before, right?). So it seems better to me for Talakeal to be very blatant with the GM in a 1-on-1 conversation, to make sure that they're as close to on the same page as possible.

[kyoryu]

I don't disagree - that is probably the correct answer. But if Talakeal goes in with that attitude, players/GMs - especially ones who know him - will interpret it as Talakeal sulking (something like this happened before, right?). So it seems better to me for Talakeal to be very blatant with the GM in a 1-on-1 conversation, to make sure that they're as close to on the same page as possible.

Eh, I don't see it being interpreted as sulking unless he's engaging in other sulking-like behavior. If he's an active, enthusiastic participant that just isn't offering GM advice, I don't see how that can be interpreted in a negative way.