Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="loverdrive" data-source="post: 8993499" data-attributes="member: 7027139">Idk if this was brought up before, but a thought just crossed my mind.We talk about the distribution of authority as if it's a zero sum game, as if taking the power from someone automatically gives it to someone else. It doesn't.Let's suppose there's a meta currency that the GM can use to mess with the players (I think 2d20 games have a such? Correct me if I'm wrong), and introduce a complication unpropmted (otherwise they must be clearly telegraphed). Yeah, the GM lost the ability to just paradrop tarrasques from a C-130. Did anybody else gain any more power?I'm bringing that up, because, uhm, "unfair", unrestricted rules, on top of all other issues, create an additional responsibility of keeping the experience fun for the other side. And that responsibility can and does clash with others (namely, providing a challenge and controlling the opposition).For a videogame example, again, there's this weapon in Team Fortress 2 called Short Circuit. It is arguably overpowered in specific situations (like when you stand near an ammo dispenser), which, in turn, adds a burden to anyone who chooses to use it: to use it with honour. For contrast, there's no dishonourable way to use a pistol (which occupies the same slot): you can just... Use it. You never have to worry about not using it while pushing cart, accidentally or otherwise.As for a TTRPG example, let's return to a locked barn.GM: There's a rusty old lock on a door, probably to keep out wild animals rather than provide any actual security.Player: Cool, I'm going to pick it. Here it goes... 25!GM: You pull out your tools and start working your magic... To your dismay, all this flimsy look is just a façade, the lock is actually a masterpiece of engineering, merely camouflaged to look cheap. (Offscreen: the lock also has a magical silent alarm system, and guards will arrive in five minutes)This situation can make a narrative sense and show how ingenious and careful the opposition is, and GM here might be acting with honour, having planned this in advance and merely portaying the world with integrity rather than playing dirty and actively trying to screw over the players, but who gives a damn? From the player's perspective, they aren't bamboozled by the opposition, they are bamboozled by the GM. There's nothing the GM can possibly do to persuade the player otherwise, that no, she didn't mean to screw them over, it just so happened that the player's chosen approach didn't work.The GM unquestionably has this authority, but precisely because she has this authority, she can't actually use it. She can't portray the world with integrity and control opposition to the fullest extent because it looks dishonourable -- higher order directive, Playing In A Way That Is Fun For Everyone, overrides both.Now let's suppose GM has a Trouble Pool, transparent to the players.GM: There's a rusty old lock on a door, probably to keep out wild animals rather than provide any actual security.Player: Cool, I'm going to pick it. Here it goes... 25!GM: (contemplates for a second, whether to give this position up or to defend it) You pull out your tools and start working your magic, but... (dramatically removes a token from the Trouble Pool) To your dismay, all this flimsy look is just a façade (and then GM will use another Trouble Point to pay for guards arriving)Now, it's fair play. The GM had to sacrifice a resource, so the player wasn't bamboozled, merely outplayed. In giving up complete absolute power, the GM was actually enabled to exercise more power.</blockquote>

Verification