Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9008683" data-attributes="member: 71699">I'd like to draw your attention to a possibly mistaken way of thinking that I believed my analysis of rule zero had laid bare. All those things you are contemplating that a GM might do - they are game things, not GM things. That a GM - or any participant - might do. What rule zero does is assign whatever you bundle up into a ball labelled &quot;power&quot; to, exclusively, GM. So when you ask<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">What about cocked dice? As a game thing, participants need to decide if they count or not. The can if they like assign that &quot;power&quot; to one participant. That participant may be the GM.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">What about rules uncertainties? As a game thing, participants need to settle on what the rules means. The can if they like assign that &quot;power&quot; to one participant. That participant may be the GM.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">What about control of adversity?</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Etc...</li>
</ul>There are no &quot;GM powers&quot;. There are game things that participants need or want to decide on, settle, apply, bookkeep, etc. They can bundle those up and assign them to one participant exclusively if they like.It's fruitful to list out those game things - unpack them in order to see what they are. It may be fruitful to discuss the merits of how they are bundled (is it useful to have cocked die resolution in the same bundle as control of adversity? or is it unnecessary?), albeit with the expectation of confounds around modes, preferences and purposes of play. Similarly it may be fruitful to discuss how power-bundles are best distributed across participants.To restate in another way. In RPG there are no principles, mechanics or choices that exist solely in virtue of a GM other than those that establish a GM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9008683, member: 71699"] I'd like to draw your attention to a possibly mistaken way of thinking that I believed my analysis of rule zero had laid bare. All those things you are contemplating that a GM might do - they are [I]game[/I] things, not GM things. That a GM - or [I]any participant [/I]- might do. What rule zero does is assign whatever you bundle up into a ball labelled "power" to, exclusively, GM. So when you ask [LIST] [*]What about cocked dice? As a game thing, participants need to decide if they count or not. The can if they like assign that "power" to one participant. That participant may be the GM. [*]What about rules uncertainties? As a game thing, participants need to settle on what the rules means. The can if they like assign that "power" to one participant. That participant may be the GM. [*]What about control of adversity? [*]Etc... [/LIST] There are no "GM powers". There are [I]game [/I]things that participants need or want to decide on, settle, apply, bookkeep, etc. They can bundle those up and assign them to one participant exclusively if they like. It's fruitful to list out those game things - unpack them in order to see what they are. It may be fruitful to discuss the merits of how they are bundled (is it useful to have cocked die resolution in the same bundle as control of adversity? or is it unnecessary?), albeit with the expectation of confounds around modes, preferences and purposes of play. Similarly it may be fruitful to discuss how power-bundles are best distributed across participants. To restate in another way. [B]In RPG there are no principles, mechanics or choices that exist solely in virtue of a GM [I]other than those that establish a GM[/I].[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification