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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8165498" data-attributes="member: 82106">I beg to differ. By all accounts Gary was exactly a dictator. 1e AD&D is festooned with places where he declares this outright, admonishing rule with an iron fist. HOWEVER I am sure he was also pretty flexible in terms of 'grants of license' within specific narrow limits. We already discussed his "let the player map out the castle location" statement in 1e DMG for example. I think he did this a lot, and also often added elements to the game via brainstorming with his inner circle (remember, they were WRITING the game, so necessarily there had to be a process for generating new material like this). Still, he was well-known for being dictatorial when it suited him, and his games were fantastically successful by all accounts.I also played with such a GM for many many years. He would absolutely never yield control of deciding anything of consequence in his campaign to any player or the action of any character. Yet he was, and probably is though we don't get to talk anymore, enormously successful as a GM. This kind of GMing is pretty common. When it is pushed too far, it usually fails, unless the GM in question has a huge amount of innate talent and creativity (such that spectating on their doings is worth the price of admission). Finally, I think I made the same point, you cannot take it too far. There are conventions and such, but I still liken this to a Sovereign and subjects model. Yeah, there was that pesky Magna Carta, and now and then Parliament kicked the King's ass, but the King's word was still pretty much law. That's exactly the situation here, and generations of people did not see that as freedom, or they never would have rebelled again and again.  Democracy seems like a better solution overall...</blockquote>

Verification