Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 9507326" data-attributes="member: 205">I think an important piece here is that the limits of a GM's ability to arbitrate are fairly granular, and not simply a &quot;Yes/No&quot; proposition.The GM's ability to arbitrate new consequences, for example, is where you see a lot of variation in system.&nbsp; A trad RPG GM can just spring an ambush, where a Dungeon World G might require a hard move triggered by player failure.The GM's ability to arbitrate fictional positioning within a scene (&quot;Wait, is my character standing close enough to the pit to fall in?&nbsp; Do I have time to cast a spell while falling into this pit?&quot;) is something where almost all styles give the GM the final call, with some exceptions in a few systems.&nbsp; Likewise, the GM's ability to arbitrate ambiguous processes (&quot;Does my climb skill work on glass?&quot;) is generally viewed as under the GM's purview.The GM's ability to arbitrate top-level house rules, including changes and removal of races, classes, and defined rules processes, is I would argue much more constrained.&nbsp; And it really comes down to situational leverage.&nbsp; The GM who says &quot;No gnomes, I don't like gnomes&quot; is in a weaker position to have final say than the DM who says &quot;We all agreed to play in my personal setting of Kezelwop, which I've been detailing for 25 years, and Kezelwop doesn't have gnomes.&quot;&nbsp; The GM will generally have the upper hand here by dint of taking on the more difficult role, but I don't think that's because of their position as the game arbiter; it's because of the inherent deference to the preferences of the person willing to take on a more challenging job for the good of the group.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 9507326, member: 205"] I think an important piece here is that the limits of a GM's ability to arbitrate are fairly granular, and not simply a "Yes/No" proposition. The GM's ability to arbitrate new consequences, for example, is where you see a lot of variation in system. A trad RPG GM can just spring an ambush, where a Dungeon World G might require a hard move triggered by player failure. The GM's ability to arbitrate fictional positioning within a scene ("Wait, is my character standing close enough to the pit to fall in? Do I have time to cast a spell while falling into this pit?") is something where almost all styles give the GM the final call, with some exceptions in a few systems. Likewise, the GM's ability to arbitrate ambiguous processes ("Does my climb skill work on glass?") is generally viewed as under the GM's purview. The GM's ability to arbitrate top-level house rules, including changes and removal of races, classes, and defined rules processes, is I would argue much more constrained. And it really comes down to situational leverage. The GM who says "No gnomes, I don't like gnomes" is in a weaker position to have final say than the DM who says "We all agreed to play in my personal setting of Kezelwop, which I've been detailing for 25 years, and Kezelwop doesn't have gnomes." The GM will generally have the upper hand here by dint of taking on the more difficult role, but I don't think that's because of their position as the game arbiter; it's because of the inherent deference to the preferences of the person willing to take on a more challenging job for the good of the group. [/QUOTE]

Verification