benlehman

Here's a better explanation of my take on things - though I agree, I don't think we're nearly as far apart in our ideas as we think.

The System is an agreement between the players on how things are going to work.

If the System says that the GM can alter the System in response to players doing something, then that's okay, because the players have bought into that idea and are trusting the GM. It just needs to be out in the open.

If the System does _NOT_ say that, then it's not okay, because the players have not agreed to be railroaded around like that. Don't get me wrong, I've played in games like that. They're lots of fun. You just have to come in with that acceptance first.

Most games have a sort of 'Rule #0' caveat which essentially says 'the GM may throw out these rules at any time'. I'm not that fond of this because I feel like it sometimes leads GMs to do what _they_ want at the expense of the other players. Rule #0 is in it's best form a reminder that if the system doesn't fit your world and playstyle to modify the system to do so, but at its worst (and really, in its usual form) it is interpreted to mean that the GM has final say over all player input. What's worse is that often the GM can do that without letting the players know.

Ideally, you should pick a system where none of this will not be necessary. If there is no extant system to do that, then you should modify one and make the modifications explicitly known to the players before they sign on with that System.

It's all about Social Contract, baby.