Critical Gamemastery: What is a Game Master?

[Alexandra]

That may be, but if everyone was writing a novel they wouldn't be insistent on playing characters would they? I mean, we aren't even editing these. That's a pretty significant role in creating a novel. No, perhaps I have misdiagnosed the prelusory goal. Perhaps, and this is probably not a new conseption, the prelusory goal of role playing is... assuming a role?


(I do appoligize for leading you down this line of discussion. I should have looked back over my source to give you a better break down, but I was just attempting to illustrate where such a goal would be found rather than give you a specific model for argument. The Grasshopper is a great read if you are interested in philosophy. It's very playful and it's written in a socratic dialog style rather than the more dry formulations of modern dissertation.)

Have you read anything about games, or game design, other than The Grasshopper?

 

[Irick]

Have you read anything about games, or game design, other than The Grasshopper?

The list of materials that I can think of off the top of my head that would inform this:

• The Rules of Play
  
• Man Play and Games
  
• Homo Luden
  
• Art and Computer Game Design
  
• Computer as Theater
  
• Game Feel
  
• I Have No Words And I Must Design
  
• Art As Experience
  
• Well Played
  
• The Definition of Play
  
• The Classification of Games
  
• The Kobold's Guide to Game Design
  
• Tabletop: Analog Game Design
  
• Various Articles on GameStudies.org
  

 

[Alexandra]

The list of materials that I can think of off the top of my head that would inform this:

• The Rules of Play
  
• Man Play and Games
  
• Homo Luden
  
• Art and Computer Game Design
  
• Computer as Theater
  
• Game Feel
  
• I Have No Words And I Must Design
  
• Art As Experience
  
• Well Played
  
• The Definition of Play
  
• The Classification of Games
  
• The Kobold's Guide to Game Design
  
• Tabletop: Analog Game Design
  
• Various Articles on GameStudies.org
  

Ah, good list.
I asked the above question mainly because The Grasshopper seemed to be the only text you were referencing, and I have my doubts about it's relevance to modern game design or GM techniques. Have you any bits from that list you'd like to share with us? I'd be really interested.

 

[AtlannianSpy]

That may be, but if everyone was writing a novel they wouldn't be insistent on playing characters would they? I mean, we aren't even editing these. That's a pretty significant role in creating a novel. No, perhaps I have misdiagnosed the prelusory goal. Perhaps, and this is probably not a new conseption, the prelusory goal of role playing is... assuming a role?


(I do appoligize for leading you down this line of discussion. I should have looked back over my source to give you a better break down, but I was just attempting to illustrate where such a goal would be found rather than give you a specific model for argument. The Grasshopper is a great read if you are interested in philosophy. It's very playful and it's written in a socratic dialog style rather than the more dry formulations of modern dissertation.)

If you've never read a piece of fiction that exists solely as a vehicle for one character or indeed one that hasn't been edited than you probably have allocated your reading time more wisely than me but it's not like they don't exist. In the first place the fact that roleplaying as a medium has a low standard of editing necessary to achieve an audience is one of the reasons it's an attractive narrative building tool for some people. I think the entire point of this tangent was that Storyteller is perfectly valid title for a GM because for some people roleplay is a tool for collaborative storytelling and its gameplay aspects can function subordinately to that aim.

It's not an attempt to convey much information. It's an attempt to give a model that allows for informed interpretation. It's a structure by which it may be useful to contextualise other, harder problems in order to dissect them and explore the interaction. I will admit that it may not be useful for the broader level questions yet. I need to develop more on top of the framework base to address matters of practicality. The abstraction is a necessary starting point to establish a foundation model, though I acknowledge this makes it difficult for someone to apply it to their GMing style directly. I will develop these tools out after further reflection.

Informed by what though? If you can't point to what exactly your model is based on in reality than it's a totally theoretical model that will lead you towards totally theoretically answers to these harder problems. I get that to some extent that's what academics is but at some point you have to actually engage with what you're supposedly analysing. It seems to me that abstraction and universality should be an end point not a starting point. 

It's not an attempt to convey much information. It's an attempt to give a model that allows for informed interpretation. It's a structure by which it may be useful to contextualise other, harder problems in order to dissect them and explore the interaction. I will admit that it may not be useful for the broader level questions yet. I need to develop more on top of the framework base to address matters of practicality. The abstraction is a necessary starting point to establish a foundational model, though I acknowledge this makes it difficult for someone to apply it to their GMing style directly. I will develop these tools out after further reflection.


I understand your doubts in regards to the interests of players, but I will have to refer to myself as an authority on this particular issue. I've been running tabletop games for a decade and some change. I have met quite a few players and had to deal with their interests. In the old school 'grognard' there is a focus on the mechanics as an extension of wargaming. This has to do with the historical context that D&D was created in and its dependance on the fantasy wargame Chainmail. There were games that are similar to our narrative focused ilk back in the early days, namely Tunnels and Trolls, but the 'serious' practitioner of the hobby a that time viewed them somewhat disparagingly.


The narrative is there, it's an aspect of the game. But it's also an aspect of wargames. It's an aspect of chess, etc. The players are going to be inclined toward different levels of narrative importance depending on how they approach the game. Someone who studies computational aspects of Chess isn't probably going to be thinking in terms of two armies clashing so much as a symbol system that conveys a game state. Similarly, someone who is playing a wargame is probably not imagining the how the logistics struggles their hypothetical commander is undertaking is affecting his personal life. They are going to be thinking in a different mode, the tactics are key to them, the narrative is just consequential. It's something someone else will read into their game.

I'll concede this. if only because we're talking around each other rather than usefully arguing something.

The GM gives feedback. It's not that it's their job, it is that by playing they form an opinion, By forming an opinion, their behavior changes, as their behavior changes the state of the popular culture changes either implicitly or explicitly. There isn't a conscious choice in this model, it's a cause and effect.There is always information leak, GMs are just more likely to be the source of that information.


Again, it may help not to try and imagine a case a specific entity but instead think of a billion of these systems and then think about how the majority of them would work.

See if this is what you've been trying to convey this whole time then this thread was arguably mistitled. "What is a Game master?" is the question you supposedly set out to answer but what we got is a tri part model through which players, Gms and game creators affect each other and gradually influence the state of gaming. Even academics should aspire to clarity or at least precision in language. I think a lot of the frustration in this thread has stemmed from the fact that the thing you are interested in discussing and the thing your choice of words has implied you are interested in discussing are pretty significantly different. 


I still don't really know what questions you expect this model to eventually aid you in investigating though. 

 

[Irick]

Ah, good list.
I asked the above question mainly because The Grasshopper seemed to be the only text you were referencing, and I have my doubts about it's relevance to modern game design or GM techniques. Have you any bits from that list you'd like to share with us? I'd be really interested.

This is more or less because I've started my position accepting The Grasshopper's definition of play. It is a useful definition. I'm building a framework around it, because it only defines the act of play and not the game. I want to, therefore, build an original model that explains what a game is as an entity.


In Rules of Play there are quote a few lenses that the authors propose:


Systems:

• Games as Emergent Systems
  
• Games as Systems of Uncertainty
  
• Games as Information Theory Systems
  
• Games as Systems of Information
  
• Games as Cybernetic Systems
  
• Games as Game Theory Systems
  
• Games as Systems of Conflict
  

Play:

• Games as the Play of Pleasure
  
• Games as the Play of Meaning
  
• Games as Narrative Play
  
• Games as the Play of Simulation
  
• Games as Social Play
  

Culture:

• Games as Cultural Rhetoric
  
• Games as Open Culture
  
• Games as Cultural Resistance
  
• Games as Cultural Environment
  

In terms of an overview, I'd very much suggest this book. Each of these lenses is informed by several primary works. It's a great survey. Unfortunately the subject matter is so broad it's not easy to summarize.

See if this is what you've been trying to convey this whole time then this thread was arguably mistitled. "What is a Game master?" is the question you supposedly set out to answer but what we got is a tri part model through which players, Gms and game creators affect each other and gradually influence the state of gaming. Even academics should aspire to clarity or at least precision in language. I think a lot of the frustration in this thread has stemmed from the fact that the thing you are interested in discussing and the thing your choice of words has implied you are interested in discussing are pretty significantly different. 

To understand what a game master is, I must define game. This model, is game. From this model, I can understand the role of a game master, but without this model, I do not have a grounding but in the word 'game'. The word 'game' is imprecise and gives me no insights to its nature. This model does. In terms of precision of language, it is necessary for me to define the primary aspects of any system I am exploring.

I still don't really know what questions you expect this model to eventually aid you in investigating though. 

All of them.


This is a joke. I want to establish a sort of theory of game which will let me contextualise the odd bits of advice and tools i've developed into a more cohesive system. This field of study is small, so I've got to dabble both in theory and practice.

 

[DarkLightHitomi]

"Anything I have to say about tabletop games would be conjecture, I listen to D&D podcasts but have never played a tabletop game personally, but I would think that table top players are at least partly interested in the fantasy or story element, otherwise they would just go play chess or video games right? Instead they chose a game that requires them exercise creativity to some extent and fill in the gaps with their imagination and they often choose to play in a way that has more to do with their imagined elements of backstory rather than the hard rules of the game "What would my character do?" Although I'm aware many systems incorporate and gamify such decisions with inspiration or similar systems. "


There is much wrong here.


Interest in story can take many forms, and a lot of those forms apply to non-rpgs. I.E. Halo is well known for it's story, but the actual gameplay doesn't affect nor produce the story, rather the story serves as a backdrop for the gameplay with major plot points and exposition providing important intermisson periods in between sessions of actual play while also maintaining interest in the game.


Many players treat rpgs exactly the same way, with encounters being the primary gameplay and rp/listening-to-the-story is simply filling the breaks between encounters and providing the cosmetic backdrop. In fact, many players never ask "what would my character do" i  favor of forcing their character to act according to the best options from the player's perspective.


Also, creativity can be expressed in many ways. I.E. I use abilities to creatively interact with the fiction, but others express creativity in how they combine the mechanics into new patterns capable of new outcomes. What is unique about most rpgs is twofold, the breadth of different ways to use the rules, and the ability to do things that are not explicitly allowed by the designers yet also not simply emergent from the explicit rules. Rpg rules are not "you can do this" rather they are "this is how to handle things similar to this."

 

[DarkLightHitomi]

I also find it funny that you consider other posters dismissive yet were so dismissive of my post as to not even acknowledge it and therefore never refute my point.

 

[SaintHax]

... I can understand how this would elude you, as you seemed fuzzy as to how culture could inform games.


But this is besides the point now: You have insulted me. I demand an apology, or I will dismiss your further input. You are clearly not arguing in good faith and are not deserving of the role of interlocutor until you can engage civilly as well as critically.

I'll ignore the demand of an apology, due to the passive-aggressive insults you returned, and consider us even.  However, even though I remain suspicious, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and keep my post constructive.  I hope in return, you take heed to the points and address them directly, and don't explain them away.

1. Part of the problem is you are using some words incorrectly.  In fact, when I pointed out you used "ludic" instead of "rules" b/c narrative was part of "the game" ludic refers to, you dismissed it saying you meant ludic as in "regarding to play"-- which is still wrong, b/c narrative is part of the play aspect of RPG's, and you clearly meant interpreting the rules.  This makes it laborious to take part in this thread b/c of these mistakes.
   
2. You insist on using arcane wording (which I do understand) despite the fact it's not helpful for your target audience on RPNation.  Your claim that you try to moderate yourself, but can't is hard to believe.  I'm a Sr. Software Engineer, and I can talk about writing big-endian to little-endian gateways so that a server in Bahrian on an X.25 network can talk to a Unix server here... or I can tell people outside my group that I wrote something to let a computer that uses a different way of speaking talk to ours.  The same point is made, and the only details that are left out are only important to other engineers anyway.  It's very easy to do this... very easy. 
   
3. You didn't define your scope, and when you did you stated it was "universal".  The roles of a GM are so drastically different in Mage: The Accession, from 2nd Edition D&D, that if you are covering them all, then the point is moot.  It would be like defining transportation, instead of "racing motorcycles".  It's so broad, that it should be summed up quickly, and is so expansive to be near (or "nigh") useless.
   
4. As others have pointed out, you've spent more time defining a game design lifecycle, than answering your thread "what is a game master".  You should be answer that question first and defining other terms as needed.  That's the way these things work.  If you define too much, and readers disagree, they start attacking various parts and the thread becomes chaotic.  Keep It Simple: stay on point.
   
5. Adding to the above-- you said I didn't understand your definition of a Game Master when I summarized it, but didn't correct me or expand on it.  Please do so.
   
6. Don't cite a particular book more than once: you gave it credit, the remainder should be your interpretation of it, and multiple citations looks like an advertisement for it.
   
7. Lastly, if you ever attend a Brandon or Tampa meetup group, I'd be more than happy to meet up with you and discuss any of these or other gaming points in conversation.  I find it's a much better medium to getting things sorted out.  I'm out of pocket for about 6 weeks due to my wife's current deployment though, so Brandon is all I can make (single dad for a while).
   

Corrections and examples

The common culture speaks English. Therefore, the rules are writen in english. The common culture sees dragons as quadruped beasts with wings, therefore they are described as such in the monster manual.

That is not rules being created by common culture-- first, the description of dragons is not a rule.  The rules being written in English is not applicable, as it's a mode.  The rules are translated, and yet the rules are consistent.  Common culture would influence both design intent and play, but I can't see how it is used to generate rules.  This is one of those things you are using incorrectly, but you will insist otherwise.

The DM buys more books. Modules, handbooks, setting guides. The DM is also their marketing point of contact and a convenient way to get a pulse on an exponentially larger player base without having to go to the effort of individual project marketing for 4x+ the points of contact. This is why Wizards reaches out to RPGA DMs for consultation so frequently.

Balderdash!  I've been a DM in the RPGA.  Heck, part of my gaming group was Chris Reed who was part of the Triad that ran the Florida campaign for RPGA's Living Greyhawk when it was around.  I was also part of Wizard's play test team at one point for D&D: and these two roles had nothing to do with each other.  I was staff for ShadowRun missions team, and staff for organized play for AlphaOmega, and I've been taken out to dinner several times by Hero's Games in thanks for running convention games.  Heck, I've sat at the bar with game developers at GenCon-- and trust me when I say, that no company has every thought of Game Masters as part of a feedback loop to them.  Furthermore, almost all organized play is seen as marketing, and some game designers have even gone as far as actively avoiding GMs.  


More so WotC!  WotC has a very established and mature play testing process, with man power to dedicate just to it.  In addition, they also contract out game designers-- Monte Cook doesn't give a flip about the RPGA (however, he'd never admit it).  Any other company might... might decide to poll their organized play GMs, but even Hero Games opted to use a forum for such thing.  This part of your axiom is indefensibly wrong.  If this is not just a flame bait thread, then please take in this information and adjust your theories.

 

[Irick]

@SaintHax I do not entertain those who do not argue in good faith. This is a basic nessesity for constructive exchange. If you are neither willing to appoligize nor take common ground then the argument is useless.


I don't particularly care what you use for intra network communication, but the intermediary is IP/TCP. Abandon your IMPs, accept the stakes of argumentation, or accept you are just adding (rather rude) noise to the channel.

 

[DarkLightHitomi]

@SaintHax I do not entertain those who do not argue in good faith. This is a basic nessesity for constructive exchange. If you are neither willing to appoligize nor take common ground then the argument is useless.


I don't particularly care what you use for intra network communication, but the intermediary is IP/TCP. Abandon your IMPs, accept the stakes of argumentation, or accept you are just adding (rather rude) noise to the channel.

Most dismissive and foolish.


He is arguing in good faith, which does not require an apology. He is aiming for common ground but you keep refusing it.


IP/TCP have specific uses, and despite them being practically the only ones known to non-it people, they are not used for everything.

 

[Irick]

He is arguing in good faith, which does not require an apology. He is aiming for common ground but you keep refusing it.

He literally accused me of being a puppet account and has been nothing but dismissive from the start. That's the textbook definition of bad faith. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt for the first few posts, but no. There is no point engaging with someone who refuses even to allow I'm a real person with real opinions.


As for the TCP/IP anology. I'm using that correctly. Transmission control protocol and internet protocol were both developed to bridge earlier communications technologies such as ARPANet's IMPs and  the desperate resources on PRNet and SATNet. They were the common ground by which intranets could share information and services. They grew up in the network and between the early academic users who then had the telecomunications giants come over and try to force X25 down everyone's throats because TCP/IP was clearly just a toy protocol. (They never completely got over their distrust of packet switching so they basicly reimplemented circet switching within the protocol because: a lot of good reasons actually but its easier to implement TCP/IP and also telecoms giants = bad ARPANET hacks = good.)


Anyway. The point is, no. He is not engaging in good faith and I refuse to engage seriously with anyone who has taken an antagonistic position. It is considered harmful.


Argumentation is testing ideas. I'm not about to mix that with having to deal with personal attacks and "suspicious" interlocutors. I'm deeply saddened that its not intuitively obvious that you can't argue in good faith from a position of suspicion. That's a fundamental contradiction of terms. Arguing in good faith means to take your interlocutor as both honest and engaged in effective critical thought. If you are 'suspicious' of your interlocutor, then one of those conditions does not apply.


I will say its understandable to think that just bickering is argumentation (as it is sometimes commonly used), but its not. If I'm arguing with you, I first accept you as peer and  hen I take your arguments as serious critical observation. I'm not here to play at being a politition. If you want to badly about suspicions of my motives or otherwise call in to question my character, I'm not going to have much to say to you. Your opinions are your own.


However, if you want to engage with me as a peer and consider interesting things, I wont hold a grudge. I'm just not going to abide the mix. I get enough of that with electoral politics.

 

[DarkLightHitomi]

His posts were not perfect, but the remarks against you started off as a description of the impression he got from your posts and that is different from just jumping straight to claiming certain things about you.


"Arguing in good faith means to take your interlocutor as both honest and engaged in effective critical thought."


Can't say I agree with this. I consider good faith to be critical thought and analysis of the statement regardless of feelings about the one making the statement.


And he did that. He made critical thinking comments on your statements in addition to comments on your presentation and comments on the impression he gets of you from your posts.


=========


Aside from all that, you still haven't responded to my comments on the actual topic of the thread.

 

[Irick]

His posts were not perfect, but the remarks against you started off as a description of the impression he got from your posts and that is different from just jumping straight to claiming certain things about you.


"Arguing in good faith means to take your interlocutor as both honest and engaged in effective critical thought."


Can't say I agree with this. I consider good faith to be critical thought and analysis of the statement regardless of feelings about the one making the statement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/good+faith


I'm using a technical term. I understand you may have a differing idea, however this is how the term is used when it refers to arguments philosophical, practical, and legal.

Aside from all that, you still haven't responded to my comments on the actual topic of the thread.

I didn't  really know what you were referring to. You copy-pasted several text blocks of mixed prose, but I didn't know who's arguments you were attempting to refute. You may wish to brush up on the quote tool for this forum, it's really difficult to parse implicit connections. I'll make a guess as to what you are trying to address of my argument.

Interest in story can take many forms, and a lot of those forms apply to non-rpgs. I.E. Halo is well known for it's story, but the actual gameplay doesn't affect nor produce the story, rather the story serves as a backdrop for the gameplay with major plot points and exposition providing important intermisson periods in between sessions of actual play while also maintaining interest in the game.

Did you know Halo was supposed to be a third person tactical game? Master Chief was going to be a special command unit and the player was going to control the whole thing without ever seeing out of Mater Chief's helmet. I think that would have very much changed how people would have viewed their relationship with the game's story. Every aspect of a game affects every other aspect. Even aspects external to the game inform what we get out of it. For instance, imagine that you lived in a theocracy that very much resembled the Covenant. How would that make you feel about their portrayal in Halo?


I'm basing a lot of my arguments on the assumption that we can agree that games mean different things to different people.

Also, creativity can be expressed in many ways. I.E. I use abilities to creatively interact with the fiction, but others express creativity in how they combine the mechanics into new patterns capable of new outcomes. What is unique about most rpgs is twofold, the breadth of different ways to use the rules, and the ability to do things that are not explicitly allowed by the designers yet also not simply emergent from the explicit rules. Rpg rules are not "you can do this" rather they are "this is how to handle things similar to this."

I never said anything about only being able to be creative by methods explicitly defined by systemised rules. I'm just arguing that rules serve as one of the structuring forces in which play take place and are informed by the interactions I have defined above. I see the GM as a feedback mechanism that allows that structure to organically loosen and tighten to allow more and less stringently defined play, depending on player disposition, gm rules knowledge, rules themselves, other games the GM is familiar with etc. etc. etc.


This is why I said I could probably expand the influences within the model, but it would quickly become chaotic with too many variables to track to be useful for thinking about this relationship.

 

[DarkLightHitomi]

"Good faith (Latin: bona fides) is fair and open dealing in human interactions. This is often thought to require sincere, honest intentions or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action." - From your first link.


Being fair, open, and honest in regards to the topic/focus of arguement is different from believing someone else is fair, open, and honest, even when that someone else is the one who made the statement that is the topic.


Further, being fair and honest is a whole different thing from believing someone else is acting with those traits.


Thus, "critical thought and analysis of the statement" is good faith since the entire point of making an arguement is to provide an analysis, and potentially insight, based on open-minded critical thought. It is good faith because it is fair and honest to the purpose.


Feelings about other individuals doesn't enter into it except for how much one allows those feelings to interfere with one's critical analysis.


You are allowing your feelings towards him to interfere with analyzing his arguements (by making you ignore the arguements), thus it is you who is lacking good faith.

 

[DarkLightHitomi]

"copy-pasted several text blocks of mixed prose, but I didn't know who's arguments you were attempting to refute." -you, above post


I quoted a single block of text, your post.


As for mixed prose, I just suck at that. In fact, I suck at writing in general really.

 

[DarkLightHitomi]

"Did you know Halo was supposed to be a third person tactical game? "


Did you forget that was before it got stuck on a shelf? Then it got a complete overhaul.


But how does that relate to the point?

 

[DarkLightHitomi]

"I never said anything about only being able to be creative by methods explicitly defined by systemised rules." -you, above post


I know you didn't and I didn't say you did.


You claimed that rpgs were somehow special in requiring creativity and that it was a reason for players to choose rpgs over other games. My point was that many players express creativity only in ways that could be expressed in other game types as well. Meaning there is nothing special about rpgs in terms of creativity that affects their choice.


I then went on to better define the creative aspects that are unique to rpgs, the aspects that get a lot less attention in system games these days.

 

[SaintHax]

@DarkLightHitomi, it's a lost cause.  He's not responding b/c of tone, it is b/c of one of two things, and at this point I don't know which is more likely: he either is not here to engage in critical thinking, b/c he is unwilling to concede on any point that would make him restate his position; or it is a flame bait thread.

1. He uses misdirection and can't stay on topic-- he even took an IT analogy on speaking in a vernacular, and went off topic to give his opinions on X.25.  Which also had nothing to do with my example.
   
2.  He won't explain anything-- if someone says they don't understand something, or he tells (me) they don't understand it-- he just hand waves it away as he's so engrossed in game design theory, that all he can speak in is jargon.  I know people with doctorates in fields I know nothing about, yet they can break it down for me.  Odd.
   
3. He's explained mistakes, by stating something new wrong and has owned it as if it was fact and the original intent-- how do you debate with someone that doesn't know they are wrong when it's pointed out?
   
4. He's straw manned you in the last post.
   

It is best to move on, there is nothing productive here

 

[Irick]

Further, being fair and honest is a whole different thing from believing someone else is acting with those traits.

Buddy. The irony here is actually painful. I provided you with a literal textbook definition after explaining what this term means in layman's and rather than accept the miscommunication, you want to argue about the definition.


I do not have the time nor the inclination to walk you personally through a crash cource in argumentation. Espectially not seeing as you will actually argue the simple term definitions. There are some good YouTube videos by PBS idea channel on argument. Go watch them. 

"I never said anything about only being able to be creative by methods explicitly defined by systemised rules." -you, above post


I know you didn't and I didn't say you did.


You claimed that rpgs were somehow special in requiring creativity and that it was a reason for players to choose rpgs over other games. My point was that many players express creativity only in ways that could be expressed in other game types as well. Meaning there is nothing special about rpgs in terms of creativity that affects their choice.

You seem to be forgetting that I'm just using RPGs as a metaphors to refer to game as a whole in order to ask questions about what game master is in that system.

"Did you know Halo was supposed to be a third person tactical game? "


Did you forget that was before it got stuck on a shelf? Then it got a complete overhaul.


But how does that relate to the point?

You are not reading past the first sentence. Please stop doing that. The rest of that paragraph answers your question: Gameplay choices change the meaning of narratives.


I suggest you take a moment or two to calm down if you are actually trying to engage in this argument. As it stands, you just triple posted. Take time considering your responses and try to actually absorb the information so you have the chance to analyse rather than just react.

 

[Dusky]

[SIZE= 26px]Topic Closed[/SIZE]
​

This topic has been closed because it has failed to stay civil on all sides, in particular in regards to the implicit condescension. It has also, to an extent, strayed off-topic. In the future I am sure all involved will regulate their tone. You can view RPN's Site Rules here and if you have questions about the closing of this thread you can submit a Support ticket here.