Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8999655" data-attributes="member: 7039850">Your last sentence here made me realise another critical dimension to flexibility. That is flexibility according to which axes.I would for instance say D&D is for instance very rigid compared to gurps or fate with regard to setting. This is due to the implied setting in the character building aspects of it. However this seem to be unrelated to the aspect of degree of DM control.With regard to tone, genre and overall fictional flavor, I think most games mentioned here are similarly flexible, which again do indicate that this flexibility is somewhat unrelated to GM controll. However there are plenty of games out there that tightly clamps down these very tightly, and these also by necessity must have less GM control than what D&D provides - so in this case less GM controll might correlate with less flexibility.It is in particular with regard to process of play I have had in mind when I have made my claim. Handing npc control to players, giving players xp tokens to grant as they see fit to others during session and having each player stating one thing that will happen during a session at session start is all exampes of procedural grips I have felt has been easy and natural to introduce in D&D mid campaign. None of these conflicts with any stated rules of the game as far as I can see, and the game explicitely encourages such in the text. It can also be mentioned that I did not impose any of these on the players. General social decency dictated that this was the kind of measures that should be tested for social acceptability. The critical observation I think is that there were never any question if this would be within the boundaries of the rules provided by the game to introduce such procedures, as the rules explicitely defer the decission power it would normally have over the matter to the DM.It is this social dynamic I claim is altered in a game where the rules are claiming more complete procedural controll, without control delegation to the GM. Introducing procedural changes would of course still be possible, but would require the group to buy into actively going against the stated rules of the game they decided to play. For some groups that might still be trivial, but I expect most have no problem envisioning a player of the kind that would counter any such suggestion on the basis of it going against RAW - and the professional designer probably know better than us amateurs what is best for us <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification