Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6426996" data-attributes="member: 87792">Which is the case in Fate - and just about every GM'd Indy Game I can think of.There are only three common positions I am aware of.  And Traveller switched between two of them.1: There is no GM.  Everyone is equal.  This is almost exclusively modern Indy-games and sticks out like a sore thumb.  If there is no GM then questions of GM authority are a moot point and can safely be ignored.2: The players have the right to establish things subject to a GM veto.  This is the case in Fate.  It is also the case in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s example of Classic Traveller.  If the GM does not have a veto they are not in any meaningful sense the GM.  And offhand I can't think of any games with a demi-GM in this way.3: The GM is the only person with establishment rights. This is the case in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s case of Megatraveller.If you are objecting to Fate where the player may spend a Fate point to establish things subject to GM veto (and that relate to relevant aspects) then you are objecting to Classic Traveller where the player may use the Streetwise skill to establish things.  It is exactly the same level of DM authority and expected behaviour.There are different advantages to the three approaches.  Approach 1 is very different so we'll put it to one side.  Approach 2 is generally a very good low prep approach for games where roleplaying and story are paramount and player skill is a minor consideration.  Approach 3 on the other hand is good for old school roleplaying where player skill is vitally important, metagaming is a sign of skilled play, and everything has been mapped out in advance almost to Harn levels of detail.Oh yes they do.  Made explicit as Rule 0.  Indeed 2e from memory encouraged outright fudging as well.I find during play to be generally more fluid but YMMV.This.  A thousand times this.  People have a context.  Without a context, characters become two dimensional cardboard cut-outs.  If you don't want me to tie details to the setting you are literally asking me to play someone with no backstory.  Which is a ... limited ... range of possible characters.In the end the DM has veto authority, agreed.  Mind control is a very dangerous thing because looked at objectively the players have a lot less information than the characters.  Take a film (preferably a good one) and turn on the narration track.  Then turn off the screen.  You understand the subtle details of the film based on just that?  This is about the level of information even a good GM gives out.  Changing the rules on them (as Mind Control does) just makes things a whole lot harder.Some encourage more than others - but right on the nail.I don't.  In BSG you have an entire cast and their body language to worry about complete with directing and costuming.  In a tabletop RPG your information is limited to what the GM can convey and as all the information you get comes through the narrator (i.e. the GM) you must be able to trust that narrator.  The only way I see that working is as a moderately large scale LARP or with a group that knows each other very well.</blockquote>

Verification