Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9034156" data-attributes="member: 7023840">To go back to something I referenced earlier, there is often a desire to make typologies "mutually exclusive" so that being in multiple categories is (saints preserve us .....) ...... incoherent. When life usually isn't like that. Most of the time, things aren't delineated into neat categories, and things aren't, in fact, mutually exclusive. Hence the omnipresent meme, "Why not both?"You presented a typology. I said it was pretty good. But it's not mutually exclusive. It just isn't. Having the participants agree on the shared space does not EXCLUDE having people be tactful and cooperative which does  EXCLUDE having a central authority which does not EXCLUDE to group acquiescence to new rulings. In fact, all four are usually present.Here, let's take Disco Party Athletes as an example. When I ran it after writing if for Iron DM, everyone had the same access to the shared space, and there was general agreement. The group was tactful and cooperative. There was a central authority, but such authority was tempered by the mechanics that favored shared collaborative control over the fiction. Finally, new rulings (such as when I described a setback or something bad) were taken in good faith, or when there was discussion about the parameters of the "boot and rally."The factors are not exclusive- they're all in there. Again, you have an interesting (and arguably accurate) typology. But the factors aren't mutually exclusive. You're hung up on high trust, because you're conflating it with arguments about authority. This isn't an argument about authority. I will refer you to Perfected, or Cthulhu Dark which states-Who decides when to roll Insanity? Who decides when it’s interesting to know how well you do something? Who decides when something disturbs your PC? Who decides whether you might fail? Decide the answers with your group. Make reasonable assumptions. For example, some groups will let the Keeper decide everything. Others will share the decisions. These rules are designed to play prewritten scenarios, run by a Keeper. If you try improvising scenarios or playing without a Keeper, let me know.Is the trust from the players to the GM? The GM to the players? The players to each other?YES!....I think we've been doing it. I've been doing it for a while. In a LOT of posts. Heck, remember the post I made about context-switching paralysis in D&D as people move from those areas that are heavily codified to those that are lightly codified?Discuss what you'd like!</blockquote>

Verification