Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4715627" data-attributes="member: 80487">Strictly speaking: Only in that it removes "the GM." We can't remove an insistence if it wasn't there in the first place. In fact, we can't remove it at all! Someone is still free to insist, "You can't set the inn on fire! You're wrecking the story!" Others are still free to insist, "Yes, we can! In fact, we are!"That can depend a bit on rules structure and presentation of game premises. Dark Cults is by design a competitive game, and the last sentence of that passage has an especial (although not unique) relevance to 3E/4E D&D.However, much more depends on the group of players. Now, someone so inclined can get hung up not only on "my character's awesomeness" but on "my story/world elements' awesomeness". He or she can get into an adversarial role not with the now-absent GM (which taken to an extreme would be a losing proposition without the latter's self-restraint) but with other players (potentially beatable within game rules).Again, more 3E/4E-isms -- with no clear reason why they should be any less relevant if something similar is the rules set in play.Reasonably, the other players' actions are no less significant. In any case, an unreasonable player can always find someone else to blame.In short, the nature of the game does not change the nature of the players -- but the nature of the players can change the nature of the game!</blockquote>