Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8155350" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, the range of games the GM will play in is limited by what the GM is willing to run.&nbsp; There may be no consensus and therefore no game, but this doesn't privilege the GM in the conversation.&nbsp; Thinking so is assigning authority to the GM outside of the game because of authority inside the game.&nbsp; This isn't a good social interaction.Here's how it play's out:&nbsp; a player pitches a game.&nbsp; Presumably they might also run it, but this isn't required -- my next game starting in January was pitched by a player, agreed to by the group, and will be GM'd by me.&nbsp; But, usually it's the GM pitching.1)&nbsp; no consensus forms.&nbsp;&nbsp; The pitch fails, and another pitch is needed.2)&nbsp; A consensus forms, everyone is onboard -- the game happens.3)&nbsp; A consensus forms, but a player or two does not join.&nbsp; Those players find something else to do, and the game happens.4)&nbsp; A consensus forms, but the GM does not join.&nbsp; You either get a new GM or you try a different pitch.You're looking at case 4), and declaring that the GM has authorities in cases 1-3 because case 4 might obtain.&nbsp; This is a flawed reasoning -- that case 4 might exist is not sufficient to grant the GM additional authorities over the other cases, nor to make a pitch that is absolute.&nbsp; There's tons of cases of a GM being unable to get together a game they want to run because they can't find sufficient players to accept their concept.&nbsp; This isn't exactly rare.&nbsp; If the other players don't want to play in the pitched game, even after negotiation. this doesn't elevate the GM to be able to override just because that game won't happen now.&nbsp; That would be the point.Also note that none of this presumes players have any ability to dictate to the GM in these talks.&nbsp; I'm advocating for a healthy peer-to-peer discussion, not slipping in a claim that players should have authority to dictate because of reasons.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8155350, member: 16814"] No, the range of games the GM will play in is limited by what the GM is willing to run. There may be no consensus and therefore no game, but this doesn't privilege the GM in the conversation. Thinking so is assigning authority to the GM [I]outside of the game [/I]because of authority [I]inside the game.[/I] This isn't a good social interaction. Here's how it play's out: a player pitches a game. Presumably they might also run it, but this isn't required -- my next game starting in January was pitched by a player, agreed to by the group, and will be GM'd by me. But, usually it's the GM pitching. 1) no consensus forms. The pitch fails, and another pitch is needed. 2) A consensus forms, everyone is onboard -- the game happens. 3) A consensus forms, but a player or two does not join. Those players find something else to do, and the game happens. 4) A consensus forms, but the GM does not join. You either get a new GM or you try a different pitch. You're looking at case 4), and declaring that the GM has authorities in cases 1-3 because case 4 might obtain. This is a flawed reasoning -- that case 4 might exist is not sufficient to grant the GM additional authorities over the other cases, nor to make a pitch that is absolute. There's tons of cases of a GM being unable to get together a game they want to run because they can't find sufficient players to accept their concept. This isn't exactly rare. If the other players don't want to play in the pitched game, even after negotiation. this doesn't elevate the GM to be able to override just because that game won't happen now. That would be the point. Also note that none of this presumes players have any ability to dictate to the GM in these talks. I'm advocating for a healthy peer-to-peer discussion, not slipping in a claim that players should have authority to dictate because of reasons. [/QUOTE]

Verification