Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8133625" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Perhaps you're right, I really don't recall specifics of past editions. Not that we played 4e any differently. Did it really not have the usual 'GM makes the final call' clause? I'd be somewhat surprised if that was the case...I did not assume any specific game, but yes, I assumed a traditional GM-has-the-final-authority stance. I've played and run a shitton of different RPGs and also written some (for personal uses) and that has pretty much always been the assumption. But you're right that this is not always the case, albeit I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case with the OP considering how they described their playstyle.I can see how it could be read that way.Fair, they may 'help', perhaps I worded that poorly. But ultimately my point was that a good GM is far more important than a good system, nor I have desire to restrain the GM's ability to use their judgement. This doesn't mean that the GM should routinely overrule the system, after all if they have to, then that perhaps is not an ideal system for that GM. But no system can take account every possible situation. The GM always has to make some judgement calls and even the best systems occasionally produce undesirable results.Ultimately I feel that attitudes of the people on the table affect how much the game is player driven or GM driven more than the system, though of course certain systems might encourage certain approaches. But ultimately even in a game where the GM has the nominal final authority the players can be proactive, their characters can come up with plans and start to execute them and the GM can go along with it. That the GM can direct the game in direction they want doesn't mean that they have to. </blockquote>

Verification