City of IF

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

Finally, another IF Quirer Debate! Sorry it took so long, but life does that to you, no? I must admit, it was reading Lilith's The Darkest Hour that reminded me just how much I love our paper, so I'm now back to trying to make it the best it can be! Starting with - Levels Of Control: Your perspective on how much control should be given the Players and the Game Master in Role Playing.


You all may have noticed an influx of RPs running here in our fine city, and after playing a few of them, I got to wondering about people's perspectives on control in an RP.

Player Examples: How much control, if any, do most GMs think the Players should have over the environment, Non Player Characters, and even the results of the players' own actions. I know as a general but firm rule, controlling another's Player Character is forbidden, save in rare cases where both Players worked out what they wanted to happen before hand. But what about mentioning, say, a bird flying overhead? Or, bumping into a shopkeeper the GM didn't specifically say was in the Player's path? Do you think that the player should be able to carry on a simple conversation with an NPC without the GM responding each time? Or in the case of Online RPGs, do the players have the right to describe a scene, or is this entirely up to the GM? These are just a few questions, feel free to pose more of them in your responses.

Game Master Examples: In an RP, GM, is god. My father taught me at a young age that this is the best way to stay out of trouble in an RP. But truthfully, how much control do you think a GM should really have? Should the GM be able to deny actions because it would knock the players off course should the action succeed? Should the GM be able to demand the Characters get along or travel together even if the Characters the Players made would never do so should they be real? Should a GM be able to break their own rules for no perceivable reason, or should a Player be able to call them out on it? When is a GM going overboard, and when should a Player just shoosh up and roll with the punches? These are just a few questions, feel free to pose more of them in your responses.


I know that's a long list of questions about both Players and Game Masters, but I think each one has it's place. I can't wait to hear your thoughts on this, and please look for the top opinions in the next issue if the If Quirer!

[sagittaeri]

I'm a fan of managing expectations, so the answer I would initially give is that the GM should lay out their rules, including what powers everyone has over the characters and events.

However, if I were to GM my own RP, I would have the following rules:

Players have full control over their characters' internal thoughts and emotions. They have no control over other character's thoughts, emotions or actions. As for their own character's actions, they have control within the framework provided by the GM. This includes what the character is wearing, what items they have, and etc.

Conversely, this means the GM has no control over the player's character's thoughts and emotions. However, they have control over pretty much everything else.

The player's character abilities should be worked together with the GM, as while the GM has no control over how a character feels or think, they still must know the limits of how a character can affect their world.

Anyway, just my humble opinion! :D

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

So in other words, you think the GM should have control over whatever they feel like controlling outside of the actual Player Character's thoughts, emotions, and actions? That's a but. . . . Vague. I was hoping for something more solid . . . . More specific.

[Tikanni Corazon]

Okay, I'm going to do this as a question by question thing, lol!

Quote: How much control, if any, do most GMs think the Players should have over the environment, Non Player Characters, and even the results of the players' own actions.

Simple answer is 'none'. Environment and NPCs = GMs domain. It's up to them to decide what's happening in the vicinity and the NPCs within it, unless a player has arranged to have an NPC of their own (in the manner of Pope's NPC Symar in LE). The players 'play' them game they've been set out, they don't make it up as they go along. They're given information to work with and they act accordingly. The results of a players' actions can be determined by a dice roll system or by the GM etc. It's part of the play that the players, as I mentioned above, are given information that they can then act upon. If they think that the GM hasn't given them enough information, they can always question him/her about it before they write up their reactions. I'd say that possibly a more mundane and highly trivial scenario could be allowed, such as the 'bird flying overhead' idea. More explaination on that given below though.

Quote: I know as a general but firm rule, controlling another's Player Character is forbidden, save in rare cases where both Players worked out what they wanted to happen before hand.

I'm actually not in agreement with the 'rare cases' scenario here. As a GM, I don't really like anything pre-planned, especially between the players. I personally only really have a loose storyline to follow as a GM, but I'm really not a fan of the players working out what they want to happen in a game. It's not for them to decide something like that.

Quote: But what about mentioning, say, a bird flying overhead? Or, bumping into a shopkeeper the GM didn't specifically say was in the Player's path? Do you think that the player should be able to carry on a simple conversation with an NPC without the GM responding each time? Or in the case of Online RPGs, do the players have the right to describe a scene, or is this entirely up to the GM? These are just a few questions, feel free to pose more of them in your responses.

Okay, I would say that the things listed here could potentially be allowed as long as they didn't clash with the GMs environment description. If the GM has described that the players find themselves in a lifeless, dull wasteland, for a player to then say that a bird is flying overhead would kinda contradict the environment that's been set out for them, as it's a more significant occurrence.

The shopkeeper example can be looked at in the same way. If it's a crowded marketplace/town/city (such as the Greenvale Market in LE) and there are lots of such NPCs around, it would be fair enough to assume that a character could bump into one of them without it having any real significance on the environment. If it's not crowded and it's more quiet/deserted, then not so much.

If a players current RPing consists of having a conversation with an NPC and the GM doesn't respond, then I see no reason why a conversation can't be carried on personally. If the action of a NPC leaving and, in so doing, they end a conversation, then I suppose that continuing then would require consulting the GM to see if following them would be an option, though a good GM should make it clear if following the person is an option in what they've written.

Scene description...um, no way! GM domain only! Other then the examples I've stated already (or those similar) no, no, no. I certainly wouldn't appreciate a player taking it upon themselves to go messing around with my world as they see fit. This isn't an SG we're talking about here. It's not down to the players to make the storyline what they want it to be. If that was allowed, the players would be clashing all too soon, and you'd have a majorly pissed off GM in most cases.

Quote: In an RP, GM, is god. My father taught me at a young age that this is the best way to stay out of trouble in an RP. But truthfully, how much control do you think a GM should really have?

The GM is god/law/etc. They should have as much control as they wish to exercise in an RP. It is their world, their game, their rules. Players entering into a game should take that into account and be prepared to go along with whatever the GM says. Of course, for the sake of fairness and happy players, there should be limits as to how far a GM should flex their power muscles. Changing the rules willy-nilly just to suit themselves, or being purposely stubborn about something just to show the extent of their rulership isn't being a good GM, and it's not going to make for a happy, flowing game. But generally, yes, other than in terms of the thoughts, emotions and reactions of the characters to the environment and scenarios set out for them, the GM should have full control.

Quote: Should the GM be able to deny actions because it would knock the players off course should the action succeed?

Depends upon the actions and the reasons behind them. Such actions should be put past the GM first anyway. If an action is going to have a huge effect upon the storyline/direction of the story, then I think that it should be an option for the GM to deny it. As for the reasons behind the actions, if they're legitimate and well thought out then it gives more credit to the player for wanting to play out said actions. If the player is doing so just to throw a spanner in the works, then the GM should have the right to deny.

Quote: Should the GM be able to demand the Characters get along or travel together even if the Characters the Players made would never do so should they be real?

Nope. This falls into the category of thoughts and emotions, and if characters don't get along (as long as it's because it's true to the nature of the character to be so, rather than just to cause a bit of drama) fair enough. As for the travelling together part, I think that would depend upon the storyline and circumstances in the game. I personally like the players to interact with each other, and if you have them all going off in different directions, that's not going to happen, and they will just be interacting with me, lol! I'd say that should be GM's choice personally.

Quote: Should a GM be able to break their own rules for no perceivable reason, or should a Player be able to call them out on it? When is a GM going overboard, and when should a Player just shoosh up and roll with the punches?

As I said earlier in the post, breaking/changing the rules for no particular reason isn't really on. I think that if there's a legitimate reason for it, such as problems between players in a game or the like, then the GM should have a right to change the rules if it's going to make the game easier/more fun to play.

Should a player call the GM out on it? Hmmm. I think what needs to be taken into account here is that, unless the GM in question is a really mellow, easy-going person, they're likely not going to appreciate their players telling them how to play their game.

As has been said, GM is god. That comes generally with the mentality that they're not going to be told what to do by anyone, and they stand a chance of becoming rather pissed off if someone tries, especially if the complaint is about something rather trivial or that's a problem for just the player in question, perhaps due to the fact that they're just a bit put out that their character isn't able to act/behave in a manner that they'd like to. If though, the GM is being unfair/restrictive to the point that the game is becoming tiresome and unenjoyable, then a player probably should let them know that they're not happy. A good GM will take that into account and do what they can to remedy the situation. A bad one won't. Either way, you likely won't have to worry about not enjoying the game anymore, lol! If I wasn't happy with how a game was being GMed from a player point of view, I probably just wouldn't play, and if I thought another player was taking over the game, probably the same outcome. As a GM in the latter situation, I would probably warn a player about their behaviour and if it didn't stop, I'd get rid of them (that means kill them off basically, lol!), simple as.


Just as an additional thought, GMing isn't really all that easy, in terms of keeping multiple players happy. There might be single players who don't appreciate having a lot of restrictions during play, but I find it kinda necessary personally. You can't just give free reign to the players and just be there to attempt to clean up any messes caused by clashes. You need to have rules there in the first place, to make sure that everyone is on even footing. The players mightn't always be able to do what they want, but that's life generally isn't it? Shit happens. Things don't always go the way you want them, whether the cause is environment or other people etc. Anything that goes wrong in a game will generally fall to the GM to sort out, so it's only fair that they have near full control over the game and how it's played.

On the whole, I agree with Sagi. His version might have been shorter, but it gets the general point/s across, lol!

And that is my opinion as a GM and a player. From the latter point of view, I personally like to know where I stand in an RP, and what I am allowed and not allowed to do. I think it makes for a happier and more productive game from both points of view.

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

Thanks for the input Tikanni-chan. It's good to be thorough, and I think I may do what you did sometime in the near future. The breakdown I mean :P I can see a few clashes in ideals already :P

[sagittaeri]

Hahaha we can trust Tika to come up with a comprehensive answer!

Anyway, I just want to say that I agree with Tika's every point. ;)

[Tikanni Corazon]

Lol, thanks Sagi! And yes, I'm generally very thorough with most things. On the last course I was on before I got my new job, my tutor said I'd become infamous at the centre where the courses were held for making very detailed notes about everything. In fact, I made more notes and asked more questions than any of the other students there at the time. I do like to be clear on things, both in gaining knowledge and giving it out. XD

I am interested to see the clashes of opinion here Pope actually, though I doubt very much whether my own opinions will be changed upon hearing another point of view on the matter, lol! My own GMing is very much about having the control there to manage the game and the players should anything go awry at any point, and the answers that I gave in my previous post are due to that way of thinking. But still, that is my own personal opinion, and I am interested to hear a different one. ;)

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

Let's see. I think it's only a few points we really differ on, but I'l do the whole thing anyways.


How much control, if any, do most GMs think the Players should have over the environment, Non Player Characters, and even the results of the players' own actions?

I believe in giving the Player a bit of control over all of those things. With the environment I am mostly passive on benign things like the sound of a dog's bark, or spotting a snake slither around a corner, as long as the Player leaves it benign and doesn't try to make a big deal of it. NPCs, the non important ones, I have no problem with players chatting with them. Say the player wants to but a bunt cake from a vendor I mentioned earlier, I don't feel the need to go in depth with the interaction. If I had something I wanted that particular vendor to do but the player moves too far away after purchasing the bunt cake from the vendor for me to do it, then I just find another way. Another vendor, or I make up something else entirely, it all depends on how the story unfolds to me as I type/speak my response to their actions. As for the Player's own actions, outside combat I'm very lenient. If they are a regular human, there is no bare handed scaling of smooth walls, but if they want to do some silly acrobatic feat, like doing a cartwheel while they travel down a road or jump over a low wall, I won't make them roll for it.


I know as a general but firm rule, controlling another's Player Character is forbidden, save in rare cases where both Players worked out what they wanted to happen before hand.

It's kinda different for me when it comes to Live RP and Forum RP. In Live RP, I see planning all the time, but it's mostly the character's actually talking to one another. So when it comes to Forum RP, pre-planning seems natural in some cases due to the player's inability to talk to one another as openly in them without stalling the RP as the banter back and forth. I myself know I've had some long winded characters in my career, and putting up huge monologues that the other character may have interrupted had the RP been Live doesn't seem right to me. So, in my mind, pre-planning some stuff such as the other character's nod to encourage my character to keep going, or say the other character wants me to follow them and pre-planning that he/she would follow to keep the RP moving is totally acceptable to me.


But what about mentioning, say, a bird flying overhead? Or, bumping into a shopkeeper the GM didn't specifically say was in the Player's path? Do you think that the player should be able to carry on a simple conversation with an NPC without the GM responding each time? Or in the case of Online RPGs, do the players have the right to describe a scene, or is this entirely up to the GM?

Here I mostly agree with Tikanni-chan, save for the last part. While I agree it's up to the GM to make the big broad picture, as well as the detailed ones where needed, I think there are several instances where the Player describing a scene is acceptable.

Such as, say I said a deer charged into a convenience store and rampaged about, I have no problem with the Player charging in and describing the devastation. A convenience store is something most people can picture in their heads, so describing topped shelves and spilled crap on the floor is fine.

Another example, if I say the characters are walking through a suburb, the Players are free to describe the manicured lawns, the finely kept hedges, and the yards full of kids and toys.

The last example is the one I think may make the most conflict. Let's just say the GM has been working with two character's separately. Then, one character walks into the room where another character has been doing, whatever. I have no problem with the Player looking back on my post with the other character, and drawing out the scene he/she comes upon. Now is something was obviously out of site and the character "Happens" to see it, I take issue, but the general descriptions of what they see and the positions of things and the other character as long as they match up with what has been written previously, I have no problem with.


In an RP, GM, is god. My father taught me at a young age that this is the best way to stay out of trouble in an RP. But truthfully, how much control do you think a GM should really have?

I believe in rules. I believe in following rules. However I also believe in exceptions to rules. Sometimes, just sometimes, I think a GM should let rules slide and give their Players some slack. I think the GM should have much control over the major "Plot Points" if you want to call them that, but I also thing that an RP is just as much made by the Players as it is by the GM. If a character wants to do something totally unexpected and go off in a completely different direction than the GM wanted them to, I think a good GM can find a way to work with it. I don't think a GM should be able to say "Hey, I didn't plan for that, you can't do it!" or even worse, flex the environment around to force the character "Back on to the path" they wanted them on. Letting the Player have such controls may make it harder for the GM, but I think it makes a better RP session.

Of course, on the flip side, I do believe in total GM authority in other such things like checking characters when they break the rules, and the GM themselves having creatures/beings that seem to or actually defy the rules. Sometimes, the rules just don't work for the current situation, and the GM has full authority to break them. Breaking them to, as Tikanni-chan put it, "Flex their power muscles", is just dickish for the most part. However, I've found in Live RPs that sometimes it is necessary when a particularly obstinate player refuses to take the hint that they're messing everyone else up, even if they're not breaking the rules. Sometimes, the characters need to get bish slapped by the hand of god to see the light. :-P


Should the GM be able to deny actions because it would knock the players off course should the action succeed?

As I stated above, I think the Players should be able to do as they will, even if it's not what the GM planned for. However, some things I find unacceptable.

#1: Killing another Player Character (Unless agreed upon and discussed with GM before hand)

#2: Killing an important NPC (Unless agreed upon and discussed with GM before hand)

#3: When in a party, taking an action that would affect the entire party in a major way (Such as killing an NPC, or taking up a quest for the whole party to do) without the characters discussing it beforehand.

#4: God Moding

Most other things I can think of are on a case by case basis. If a character wants to go running down the street like a madman, have at it. If he/she wants to hop the nearest barge to god knows where and they can afford it, go for it!


Should the GM be able to demand the Characters get along or travel together even if the Characters the Players made would never do so should they be real?

I agree with Tikanni-chan for the most part. The only side note I can make on the matter is if, going into the RP the Player knows they are going to have to work together with other Player Characters to complete whatever quest they are going for, making a character that WILL NOT get along with the others is a bit silly. Unless they planned on going off on their own from the beginning, and the GM knows and agrees with the idea, purposely making characters that will have nothing to do with the others is just silly. I know this seems to contradict my earlier statements about letting Players do what they like, but in truth this lats part is purely a preference on my part. For me, part of the point of a group RP, is for there to be a group *Grin*


Should a GM be able to break their own rules for no perceivable reason, or should a Player be able to call them out on it? When is a GM going overboard, and when should a Player just shoosh up and roll with the punches?

I've already said before that the GM should be allowed to break the rules, and for the most part, as long as it's not cruel or down right stupid, they shouldn't have to really explain themselves. On the other side of that, I am also in firm belief that a good GM will always explain such things. It's only right, and it helps to avoid hurt feelings and perceived favoritism/sleight.

As for calling out a GM, I'd say both yes and no. As I said, a GM doesn't HAVE to explain why he/she broke a rule, however I think a Player should not be penalized for asking why. It all depends on how the player presents it. If it's your classic, "Nu uh! No way! That's not fair! You can't do that!" Then any sensible GM would take the little buggers he- I mean tell the Player to calm down and not question the GM's decisions. A good Player would do so, while a bad Player would pitch a fit and possibly flat out leave. The again, a good Player would mostly likely present their issue more politely, and in that case the GM should have no problem responding and possibly fix what they did if they truthfully did something dickish.

When is a GM going overboard. . . . . .When they are being an ass just to be an ass and make their Player's game miserable. Also when they feel the need to control everything and give their Players no leeway to develop their own stories. When they tell a Player "No, you have to do this" when a Player tries to do something the GM didn't plan for. In other words, a GM is going overboard when they become Monster GMs no one wants to play with.

As for the shoosh up and take it, this is veeeery dependent. IF one is playing with a group and GM they know and respect, for the most part they should trust that the GM is keeping their fun in mind and even if it seems like the GM is messing stuff up, they very likely may have a good reason to do so. However, if the GM is someone they don't know and seems to have permanent evil grin on his/her face while making the character's life hell and the game is no fun, then I think the Player should either speak up, or just leave the group.


One final note here.

Tikanni wrote: Just as an additional thought, GMing isn't really all that easy, in terms of keeping multiple players happy. There might be single players who don't appreciate having a lot of restrictions during play, but I find it kinda necessary personally. You can't just give free reign to the players and just be there to attempt to clean up any messes caused by clashes. You need to have rules there in the first place, to make sure that everyone is on even footing. The players mightn't always be able to do what they want, but that's life generally isn't it? Shit happens. Things don't always go the way you want them, whether the cause is environment or other people etc. Anything that goes wrong in a game will generally fall to the GM to sort out, so it's only fair that they have near full control over the game and how it's played.


I agree, GMing isn't easy, and yeah, it's the job of the GM to clean up any messes. I also agree that restrictions are necessary and oft times make for smoother game play. However, I take issue with the highlighted portion. I know I said it once, but I'll say it again, an RP is made just as much by the Players as it is by the GM. Having near full control over an RP makes it less of an RP to me and more, guiding other people through a story you've already written. I know a lot of GMs I've seen online are like that, but I never grew up that way with my RPs. In my RPs, if the group randomly decided to rob the local parish rather than save it from the bandits that they got hired to kill, the GM would compensate. He/she would call for a small break, no more than 15 minutes, and then we would continue.

I always RPd with the adults 'cause the kids sucked at it. I heard "That's not fair!" way too much. My Dad is the best GM I've ever met, and it was his willingness to let the Players do what they want that made him so great. I spent an entire campaign a nice shade of light blue because he let me wander away from my party and drink from a strange fountain I found on the roof of a castle. This change affected every interaction I would have from that point on, but Dad adjusted and the game was all the more hilarious. Don't get me wrong, this was a serious D&D group, but the odd little additions from the characters added to the already brilliantly thought up world my Dad had come up with. *Grins off into the distance*

But, anyways, back to my point.

Tikanni wrote: Shit happens. Things don't always go the way you want them, whether the cause is environment or other people etc.

While she may have been applying it to the Players, I think it should stand for the GMs as well. Shit happens! And a good GM doesn't just deal with it, they LET it happen. As writers I know we're all a bit protective of the things we create, but when it comes to GMing, even more so than SGing, I think we need to learn to let others choose their paths from time to time. I'm all for following a story, but sometimes it's the side quests that make the story amazing.

[Tikanni Corazon]

Pope wrote: I agree, GMing isn't easy, and yeah, it's the job of the GM to clean up any messes. I also agree that restrictions are necessary and oft times make for smoother game play. However, I take issue with the highlighted portion. I know I said it once, but I'll say it again, an RP is made just as much by the Players as it is by the GM. Having near full control over an RP makes it less of an RP to me and more, guiding other people through a story you've already written. I know a lot of GMs I've seen online are like that, but I never grew up that way with my RPs. In my RPs, if the group randomly decided to rob the local parish rather than save it from the bandits that they got hired to kill, the GM would compensate. He/she would call for a small break, no more than 15 minutes, and then we would continue.

I always RPd with the adults 'cause the kids sucked at it. I heard "That's not fair!" way too much. My Dad is the best GM I've ever met, and it was his willingness to let the Players do what they want that made him so great. I spent an entire campaign a nice shade of light blue because he let me wander away from my party and drink from a strange fountain I found on the roof of a castle. This change affected every interaction I would have from that point on, but Dad adjusted and the game was all the more hilarious. Don't get me wrong, this was a serious D&D group, but the odd little additions from the characters added to the already brilliantly thought up world my Dad had come up with. *Grins off into the distance*

My reasons for this isn't really to try to control the path of the game, per say, but more to make sure that everyone is going to generally have a good time. I think that players like to play in different ways. You say that the way that your Dad GMed, Pope, made the game 'all the more hilarious'. But given the diversity of player tastes, chances are that when playing with a larger group, you're going to find those who aren't looking for a hilarious experience. They may want to play their characters seriously, and not want someone bringing something unpredictable into the game in question.

For me as a GM personally, I want all my players to be happy. As you mentioned in your previous post and which I believe I mentioned in mine, something benign that just doesn't matter about an environment I'm okay with. But I'm not good with players wandering off and describing a whole new part of the environment by themselves. I think that the main part of the game side of RPing other than the interaction with other players, is that said players are given an environment and NPCs to work with, and that's part of the challenge. If they can just bugger off and make anything appear for them, then it's not really playing is it? It's just writing a story. If a GM is good enough, they can create an environment and characters that are fun enough to interact with. Players who go off on a whim and start doing their own thing are liable to piss off some/all of the other players, and I'm not personally willing to put up with that, as I think I would be one of those players that would get annoyed were I in their position.

I actually don't think you can say what is right or wrong about GMing really. People have their own way of doing things, and I can only state how 'I' do them, and how I will continue to do them. Though I'm not entirely certain (I'm not about to be presumptious XD), I'm pretty sure that my LE players, or at least most of them, are happy enough with my GMing and my RP in general. So I'm not about to change anything. I think that my way is the 'right way' and I'm sure that every other GM on the planet is convinced that theirs is the 'right way'. I'm sure plenty will disagree with me and I would disagree with plenty of them.

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

I would like to say right off the bat that I am enjoying LE, so please don't take this as an attack on your GMing style. I've always seen it as while there are many wrong ways to GM, there is no one right way :P

Perhaps hilarious was the wrong word. Interesting would have been a better choice there. I don't know what it is about the way you stated it before, but it just sounded so inflexible. Like when in an RP the Players never got to choose their course. Maybe it's just how you said it, or perhaps the way my mind processed it, but it did confuse me a bit because you don't seem inflexible. (That's a complement by the way).

I know more than once Elman has simply looked and seen things. He's described the world around him, and you've never called me out on it. This is what has got my mind flopping about like a dead fish. Either I've been doing something that irritates you, or I'm seriously misinterpreting your words here *Grin* Oh, and I would love to hear about what you think of my GMing of SBURB. I think you do a great job GMing LE. The only thing I can see possibly having problems in the future is time passing. Depending on what's happening say two characters stop to chat, post for post, the other characters will move further unto the future than the two talking if you know what I mean. I can't wait to see how it works out!

[Tikanni Corazon]

Oh, I wasn't taking it as an attack on my GMing style, Pope. I was merely clarifying what I meant, as I guessed that I'd come across as being rather rigid and 'inflexible' as you put it in my last post. XD

Just so you know, you haven't irritated me during gameplay, and to my knowledge no one else finds it so either. I actually can't remember a specific incident where you have embellished upon the LE world, so I'm imagining that the times that it has occurred have been minor anyway. I don't approve of things being added to my game that could have an effect upon it and the other players. It makes more sense to me to go into my game with the yeses and nos all set out. I can be flexible during gameplay if it suits me, as long a it's not bothering anyone else. But no, you don't irritate me. XD

The potential changes in time difference hadn't occurred to me, to be honest, but this is my first time GMing solo and it's a hurdle I'll have to cross at some point, I'm guessing. Saying that, I have a friend who is a wonderful GM (GM for my Saturday game) and she manages beautifully with such things. That is during live play though, so I'm not sure if it will prove more difficult with forum play.

As for your own GMing style, I can only say that I enjoy playing SBURB (when I have the time...which doesn't seem to be very often these days, lol!) so I can see no objections to it so far. :)

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

Yays. I'm glad you're having fun. I hope to see you and all my other players back soon! Also, anyone else have any thoughts on this debate? I'm thinking of adding it to the next edition of the IF Quirer, so the more opinions, the better!