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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7762722" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not a chef, nor much of a gourmand - still, as I understand it, a chef produces something for others to enjoy by way of consumption (whether metaphorically - by enjoying the look of it, the smell of it, etc - or literally by eating it).There is, in this respect, some resemblance between a chef and a painter. Or a chef and an author. The relationship between chef and those who enjoy the food is not collaborative in any but the most basic (production-consumption) sense. Likewise for those other modes of creativity.As I've posted, my view is that those who approach RPGing in this way are not maximally exploring the distinctive potential of the activity, which is the collaborative generation of a shared fiction.No. That's not distinctive to RPGing. The potential to collectively establish a fiction in a very distinctive way, via a "real time" largely unedited interplay of protagonism and antagonism.There may be. Perhaps the game is at someone's house, and that person simply goes bananas every time the drow are mentioned. Or whatever. It seems these sorts of things can be accommodated by other reasonable people. But - and again I think here I overlap with [MENTION=59554]Panda-s1[/MENTION] - I don't see those as the typical sort of case.The GM who wants to run a world with no magic is not like the driver who has to undertake the chore of dropping everyone off. If running the game is a chore then something has already gone badly wrong. (And of course if person X is the driver because they enjoy driving everyone aroundand don't find it a chore  - I've known some people like that - then suddenly they don't get any special say on which restaurant we go to, do they?)I'm suggesting that to frame it as compromise is already like framing GMing as a chore - something has misfired.Without more context, frankly that person sounds a bit precious. But if they have a good reason why a monk wouldn't work, then presumably they can explain and bring others into some sort of shared position - and likewise if they're amenable to reason then someone else can, in principle, explain why on this occasion this monk won't be a problem.But if we're talking about nothing more than the collision of unalterable preferences, then I'll reiterate that the person who always insists on getting his/her way sounds a bit precious to me.</blockquote>

Verification