From: engjs@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (James Smith)
Subject: Re: Judging Roleplay
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:20:47 GMT

langsl@hhcs.gov.au writes (in reply to myself):

>> When you pay to enter a con you are paying your share of the cost of holding
>> the con, [...] You are not paying for a service, 

>   I DISAGREE.  You are paying for a service - the service is the convention 
>   itself and the games that are run there.  If it is big enough to attract
>   vendors then people often get access to goods as well that they mightn't 
>   otherwise have seen.

If the organisers were running the convention to make a profit, and paying
GMs, designers, and others salaries in order to work at the con, then you
would be paying for a service, and could expect that service to be provided.
But then you would be paying several thousand dollars to attend the con,
or rather, you wouldn't be and it would not be held.

Everyone at a convention is contributing something to making it happen.
GMs, designers, and others contribute their time and effort, players
instead contribute money to pay for the hire of the venue and other
associated costs.  And so everyone at a con has the same right to
enjoy themselves.

If you want to whinge about not getting a better GM, doesn't he have as
much right to whinge about not getting better players?

>> no right to expect anything
>> other than that the con gets held and that you get as fair a go as anyone
>> else who is there.

>   I think it is fair to expect a good chance that you will enjoy the com-
>   petitions as well as being given a fair go.  Getting treated equally 
>   shabbily as anyone else while having a rotten time meets your definition, 
>   but I don't think that is what you or anyone else really wants.
> 
>   From what I have seen the majority of organisers have as one of their aims
>   that the players at the convention have an interesting and enjoyable time.

_Of course_ the organisers want the con to succeed and everyone to have a
good time.  The two main things you get from organising a con are
reputation and an ego boost, and you only get these if the con is a good
one.  Similarly, designers want to present good, enjoyable modules, GMs
want to run good games for good players, and players want to play good games
with good GMs.

What I am saying is that if these things do not happen and you have a bad
experience, you have no right to feel you were cheated.

>> Just as all players want good GMs, all GMs want good players. It's natural
>> that name GMs end up with name players.

>   So long as other teams all have a crack at _name_ GMs, and all GMs can have
>   a crack at _name_ teams.  You should be giving _everyone_ a fair go.

The basis of this argument is that GMs/players are under an obligation to
GM/play, and this is not the case.  I have seen GMs refuse to GM certain
players, and I have seen players refuse to be GMed by certain GMs.  When
you have a reputation you can pick and choose.

I am part of a good team. I know that a good GM wants to run me through
the module.  Why should I put up with a mediocre GM, while he puts up
with a mediocre team?  Why should either of us have to take a chance on
an unknown?  I'm not obliged to sit through a poor game so that the
GM can have a good time, and neither is he.

(I use the word 'good' rather than 'name'.  Name generally implies good.)

I think it's a very healthy thing that so many of the people who are
good GMs are willing to GM for poorer teams, but I certainly don't
believe they are under any obligation to.

Jim
-- 
James J Smith             | "I couldn't get over it. All these women
School of Engineering     | in the world...and under their clothes
Newcastle University      | each and every one of them was naked, you
engjs@cc.newcastle.edu.au | know..." -- Psycho-killer, "Sandman"