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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6818605" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Very relevant.  Perhaps even very, very (or maybe even very, very, very) relevant.In a brief look at the exchange, it appears to be a go at showing various systems and techniques being vulnerable to GM bias.  Again, however, the difference between GM bias and system bias is glaringly obvious when the whole of it is evaluated through the prism of precise and transparent directives (such as your BW Gold quote).Is low resolution/malleable setting and the technique of fail forward vulnerable to GM bias (and the attendant application of force) if a system's design and its intent is opaque, waffling, dissonant, or outright silent on key issues relevant to "what this game is about" and what "running it as intended should look/feel like?"  Well, of course!  But (a) not all (or even most) TTRPGs have Calvinball embedded in their core (which is THE "vulnerable to lead-participant bias" facet of any game) and (b) some go to great (both in quantity and quality) lengths to remove it!  Finally, not all participants are apathetic about or complicit in their own railroading (via GM bias and system neutrality or outright support).  But if you take apathetic/willing players and put them in a game with a GM bent on force and a system that is conducive to it (by its opacity, dissonance, silence on key issues, or explicit support of GM force)...well, the introduction of that noise proves nothing about the inherent vulnerability of the signal of fail forward and no/low myth setting to GM bias.</blockquote>

Verification