Page 1 of 1
GM "Integrity"
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:20 am
by Donut
Ok. I ran the wrong orders for Xarfei. The difference in his orders was a move order which affected his spying orders.
My Solution: Run Xarfei's orders in a duplicate game, review his spy results, and give him the appropriate info. Send AF (the only player he spied) notice that he was spied, and make all necessary changes.
Now AF is mad because I only did a partial re-run using a method that wasn't common. I know I'm not the only GM that would do this (Not sure it's occured in anyone elses games), but I know there are GMs that wouldn't do it. I feel that what I did is absolutely 100% fair to all players in the game, as well as create less work for myself and the other players.
Thoughts?
Donut
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:09 am
by Duke
Sounds like an ok solution to me.
AF, does it matter? If this is about Josh 11 then there is no chance in hell that any of us will win over those Scholars anyhow. That ship sailed in like turn 6 or so.
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:54 am
by Saladin
I'd say that the best solution. It's much better than a complete re-run. The reason most gm's would go for a complete re-run is because it's easier to do than to correct everything manually.
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:32 pm
by Raw
I'd say just end the game on GM error and then overwrite the dat file on accident and have all hell break lose.
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:00 pm
by Duke
lol @ toy
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:03 pm
by Raw
word
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:06 pm
by Allister Fiend
Donut,
I really don't care how you resolve it,
Just so all GM's resolve these situations the same way, not be-bop around changing the way we "fix" things.
I understand that you are the GM and it's your game but please understand that if you want to be "fair" then everything needs to be done the same way, everytime, not on a "as-we-go" method or "I felt like doing it this way" method.
That's all.
And I'm not mad, just disappointed that you would do it this way rather than the standard way of just re-running it.
And I don't think any other GM would ever do it this way or ever has done it that way.
At least not any games I have ever been in and I have been in a lot of them.
Every time there was/is a problem, the turn gets re-run and that's how it has always been.
I'd like to see an example of a different game that only part of the turn was re-run........
didn't think so.........................
Allister
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:11 pm
by Raw
Actually there has been istances of this before, I don't know the games off the top of my head.
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:16 pm
by Saladin
I have on two occassions made manual changes after having forgotten a players orders so that a turn didn't have to be re-run completely. Though these were just movement and work orders.
When there were battles and more i re-ran the turn completely, simply because it would be too much work to do it manually.
The fact that most GM's don't want to spend a lot of time of limiting the damage of missed orders and do a complete re-run doesn't mean that Donut isn't doing the right thing. I think Josh should be applauded for putting in the extra effort and not wanting to change all the results that do not need changing.
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:21 pm
by Raw
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:25 pm
by Allister Fiend
Fine, just do it the same way every time and leave it at that.

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:52 pm
by korexus
Allister Fiend wrote:Fine, just do it the same way every time and leave it at that.

This is the way Josh did it last time he messed up too. I believe he missed someone's orders close to the beginning of his lost city game and used this method to run them without annoying all the other players with reruns. It was mentioned on the boards then, and people approved so it's not surprising Josh did the same again here...
As I side note, I used a similar method when I accidentally unchecked the teleport option in my Grudgematch game, messing up movement and spy orders. If GMs can be bothered to put in the extra work it certainly seems preferable to a complete re-run.
korexus.
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:51 pm
by Duke
Carful now guys. You are pushing some serious AF buttons here.

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:26 pm
by Saladin

AF is one big button.

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:04 pm
by Donut
I see your point about consistency. But heres the other side of that. NO situation is ever the same. If a battle will change then yes a full re-run is probably necessary, but I can also imagine a time where it wouldn't be necessary. Every "Re-run" is situation dependent. Like most have said, this was the best way to do it in this instance.
And no it wasn't really more work to do it that way... not if you are as experienced at fixing mess ups as I am
Donut