Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 9008388" data-attributes="member: 7039850">I am back! I found it impossible to read everything properly, but I think I have gotten the gist of what has been going on. But there is a point I feel has been a bit hanging. I think [USER=5142]@Aldarc[/USER]  made a very strong argument how rule 0 is likely a dead end when analyzing RPGs today in context of real GM power. Indeed the observation that 5ed seemingly do not have it written down in any recognisable form is also very interesting to me.However if rule 0 is actually irrelevant and non-existent, that opens the question-from where do the DM/GM derive the authority and deference they seem to be enjoying in most games with a GM/DM?I do have limited experience with non traditional GM based games, but in those I have played, the players has in general been looking toward the GM to resolve situations that might arise. This in contrast to my experience with board games where any players having read the rules normally tend to go to the rulebook rather than for instance defer decission to for instance the one that brought the game. In other words there appear to be a different social dynamics at play. I am curious if thise of you that have played in particular a lot of PtBA games with different groups have experienced something similar there?My working hypotesis is that the GM authority is inherited trough tradition. As such 5ed and DW are both similarly "tainted" with regard to what role the GM actually plays compared to what is strictly outlined by the written rules. So while DW are modulating this by adressing certain aspects of it, there are still some crucial element of GM authority at play at most tables, even if not immediately recognisable. Even on a table striving for total consensus, there might be unconcious biases toward aligning with the GM.If this hypotesis is right, interesting follow up questions could be around what this authority actually allow for? And if it is indeed possible to say how well a GM based RPG would run without such a social authority to grease the wheels? (Which ties into the original question - to what extent can a GM give up "powers" - is this authority something that would be possible to get rid of? If not, wouldnt still in one way any player contributions be at the GMs mercy on a certai  social level?)</blockquote>

Verification