All y'all motherfuggers better listen up! : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
| 14 |
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Justify. I don't believe it at all. There's a big difference, for example, between "The GM always says what happens" and "The GM uses fiat when doing so will make everyone find the game more enriching." When I make the latter statement, I assume perfect judgement, etc. Clearly, people can make bad decisions.
Or, let's try another tack. What's the difference between fiat and interpretation?
(no subject)
Using GM fiat at all means that you have now allowed for the use of GM fiat. From that point on, any time the GM chooses not to exercise fiat, he is making an arbitrary decision to allow some other agent credibility within the game. Maybe it's the dice, maybe it's a player, whatever.
Maybe he doesn't care about the outcome enough to step in and "make things right", maybe he's afraid that the players will get upset if he obviously tampers with things, whatever. But it has still become a GM decision to use dice, or not.
Make sense? The big problem with this statement is that it's true even if you don't have GM fiat ever. The choice to allow dice, or players, or the GM to have credibility within the game is a purely social one. At any time the group could decide, "Dang, that Thomas guy is a total wanker. We're just going to ignore him for the rest of the night." At that point, even if I were the GM, my authority over the game would be revoked. I could say whatever I wanted, but if the players don't pay any attention, then I'm just talking.
Thomas
(no subject)
That, right there, is the thing. Role-playing games are a social activity. 'Duh', I know, but consider that, when the GM has control over the situation - for instance, having devised a plot beforehand - the players are superfluous because it's the GM's job to keep the players in the range of the GM's story, not give them challenging opposition over meaningful stakes. Only if the GM is playing the same game as the rest of the players - dice and all - is everyone making a story together. If any player is allowed to weasel out of rolling dice (or whatever) to determine the course of events, that player pwnz the story. Everyone else becomes a sidekick at best.
I'm not saying that the mechanics for being the GM have to be the same as the rest of the players' (in fact, it's probably not a good idea. SHe's providing opposition, not protagonists); I'm saying that the GM has to be a participant in the story, not the driver. Giving GOD P0WERZ to the GM means that, ultimately, everyone looks to hir for the story, rather than acting as protagonists and making stuff happen. You wind up with ineffective, uncreative cowards as main characters.
At any time the group could decide, "Dang, that Thomas guy is a total wanker. We're just going to ignore him for the rest of the night." At that point, even if I were the GM, my authority over the game would be revoked. I could say whatever I wanted, but if the players don't pay any attention, then I'm just talking.
That's a larger social contract issue. If they think you're a wanker, you're either in a mismatched group or you're being a wanky GM. I know because I've been a wanky GM. You start getting these looks of disappointment from your players and eventually someone accuses you of 'cheating'. It stems much more from fudging dice and outside influences than actual rolls of the dice.
(no subject)