NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9238854" data-attributes="member: 7023840">To briefly address this- this just isn't true. When discussing games in the abstract, I think it is always best to assume good faith ("trust") in all participants in the game- GM and players.That said, as a matter of reality, we've all had bad experiences with other participants at one time or another. One point that I've reiterated about the division of authority is that different games simply have different failure points and tolerances regarding this.Think of a six-person game. One GM, five players.In a standard (or traditional) division of authority, you have to have a high amount of trust in the GM. But you don't require the same amount of trust in the players- not just GM to player, but also player-to-player. The upshot of this is that there is only one point of failure (the GM). The downside is that failure ... well, as well known, failure can be catastrophic.On the other hand, games with high trust required to be established among all the participants may not fail as spectacularly, but they are likely to fail more often since you have more points of failure. In a six-participant game, you can have different points of failure.  I've often noted that this is why D&D (and similar systems) work better with "mixed" tables- you don't need everyone to "bring it" or be equally involved, or even equally, um, trustworthy. On the other hand, other systems work great too, but usually are harder to find groups for consistent play. IMO, etc.</blockquote>

Verification