Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9239776" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I'll engage with it.  I don't think I'm required to accept it when I've heard it all before, though.  Just because someone wants to make an argument doesn't require me to consider their argument valid.  Maybe someone will bring up something new, but this isn't exactly my first rodeo on this topic; I've been discussing it with people for at least 30 years now.The vast majority of games are D&D, which have exactly the sort of traditional back-pressure I was talking about.  As I said, there'd not only have to be benefits to doing otherwise, they'd have to be overwhelming to displace that.And I don't think I've ever argued that they are.  That's not the same as defaulting to centralized authority.This only seems an argument that makes sense if you assume GMs won't bother unless they have all the control, which doesn't seem to be particularly complimentary to them.I've never said GMs are bad.  I've been one most of my gaming life.  I've said that assuming all the power has to be centralized in them as a default is bad more often than not (and it should be noted, that doesn't mean that full blown collective process is required to avoid it).  There's a difference.</blockquote>