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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LepcisMagna" data-source="post: 9523666" data-attributes="member: 6750753">But in your original hypothetical, you even assert that the GMEven if your thoughts have shifted from your original post, I think that line is accurate (and is what many are arguing here): that if the GM has no option to say "no" or "yes, but" or "roll the dice," their only real power is enforcing the rules ... and what rules can be enforced if a player simply asks to ignore them just this once for the "rule of cool" (or says "we don't really need to track torches, do we?")?Ah, the days when 8 hours was "brief." I miss those.  But I would argue that it answers your hypothetical exactly:Emphasis mine, but if that's what you did (and the result was what a bunch of people here are saying it would be), I think that's a strong argument for it having exactly those results.  I'm happy to admit that there are almost certainly groups out there who can make a story simply by self-enforcing their adherence to a setting, but that's going to be the exception and not the rule.  I'd argue that you'll almost always either have a player who takes advantage of their ability to conjure things into existence (either intentionally or over time as everyone wants to match/one-up the cool thing the last person did) or the whole thing will collapse under the weight of a nonsensical narrative or things will break down because not everyone had the same idea about what the setting is in the first place.  I'd argue that's why RPG systems exist in the first place: it's the constraints which make the art interesting or can provide a "fair" challenge to the players, so rather than always saying yes all the time, there are rules for how often and in what circumstances you can force a yes.I'd also argue that the GM is a player in this world as well - we deserve to have fun, just as much as (but not more than) our Players do.  Which brings us back to the extreme case: If the GM is not there to define the setting, the hazards, the verisimilitude of a place, what are they there for?  If the GM can never say "no," what are they really doing there in the first place?  What choices does the GM get to make?  And that's not solely rhetorical - I'm trying to nail down what, specifically, your proposal says the GM gets to do during a session that couldn't be replaced by someone reading a copy of the given system's rulebook, maybe a setting book, and some white-out.To bring it all back, I'd say that most (perhaps even 90% of the time), the GM can say yes.  You might even say that the GM should say yes if it improves the fun being had or the story being told (or, my favorite, the "you can certainly try").  But - I would argue - sometimes increasing the long-term fun means saying no.  Sometimes, keeping the acceptable balance means saying no.  Sometimes, the "no" now can lead to a better "yes" in the future.  It's an art-form, a high-context social structure game, and an arbitration of ambiguity that can't skew too far either in the party's favor (otherwise there will be no challenge and no reason for rules) or into an antagonistic/competitive relationship (the GM can always say "rocks fall, everyone dies" or "100 dragons attack you" but there's some obvious flaws in that even if they aren't written into rules).</blockquote>

Verification