Search results

Not if a game rule says so. If a GM can take away a major source of power or even characterization of a PC through rules on a whim, then a player table can do those thing to a GM's precious setting through rules by consensus. Which, I remind you, is very much harder.

And a GM whose a tyrant is the same thing.

Clearly the best way to do this is that the players can, once per campaign and if they're all in consensus, decide that whatever challenge or setting element or character infront of them is not up-to snuff and have it be skipped over or retconned out. This is the price I'm setting for alignment...

Rules to me are, fundamentally, mental toys--the reason for each existing is that both create a different gameplay experience on the table and in char-building. They're there to also inspire players to create an in-fiction construct of themes and aesthetic they're into, but that's a secondary...

Well I don't need directors and lead writers in my table so.....

And is a ROleplaying something of a great scale? Yeah, you contribute but the leader isn't infallible and neither is that direction something that only those who agree and create it have a say in.

Seems like a good thing that that DM authority has become more and more questioned then.

and DM has made a mistake if the group decides to go to the Isle of Dread but then next session retcons it so that they go to the Mountains of Death.

I think music bands and most creative production do have a less strict hierarchy. Like in some of those groups the Leadership is a collective, and we have the word tyrant for a reason. And there's plenty of shared group leadership in Video Games development. Most importantly they are small...

Well that's a ludicrous opinion in my eyes. Imagine if a stealth game's progression makes your skin more bulletproof and your guns bigger and explodier but treats anytime you get into a gunfight as a failure in play.

Partially yes, that is part of the social contract no? Here's my end of the bargain; Participation, politeness, and respect of the world and scenario you created with the payment that I have final say over my character.

I don't see how a GM prevents that in my experience.

Then the otherway around, is Alice Is Missing reflects a more selfish society? Why is a GM game more collaborative than a GMless? Doesn't a lack of GM means that everyone will have to at least shoulder some responsibility instead of letting the GM control and create everything on its own?

Do you think Alice is Missing promoted more selfish society than DnD?

I mean yeah, there's a reason that GMless(or GM authority spreaded out) is having traction

So why are the players even playing then? The GM can just have a bunch of mannequins that'll do whatever they say anyways

Then we can never agree because I think your approach is terrible and has little to no benefit

Doesn't seem like a DM is needed when the group itself can just kick them out.

Only if most of the players accept it

Well it's so great that we agree that alignment should only be in the hand of the player and should never-ever have the GM judge it.