Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5726445" data-attributes="member: 177">Depending on exactly what you mean by &quot;above&quot;, I might have to disagree.Cooperation does not imply equality.&nbsp; The GM has one role to play in the game, the player another.&nbsp; They each have realms of authority the other isn't generally supposed to touch.&nbsp;&nbsp; The player's will is paramount over the attempted actions of the character.&nbsp; The GM's will is paramount over... pretty much everything else.The two can still cooperate - the GM flex the world a little, the player flex the character a little, while there being notable inequalities in powers over the game.Either has the &quot;right&quot; to not cooperate at any given time.&nbsp; That comes with a responsibility to do so thoughtfully.&nbsp; But, ultimately, that doesn't make it wrong for one or the other to dig in their heels and just say, &quot;No.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; There is, ultimately, no obligation to do what you don't want to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 5726445, member: 177"] Depending on exactly what you mean by "above", I might have to disagree. Cooperation does not imply equality. The GM has one role to play in the game, the player another. They each have realms of authority the other isn't generally supposed to touch. The player's will is paramount over the attempted actions of the character. The GM's will is paramount over... pretty much everything else. The two can still cooperate - the GM flex the world a little, the player flex the character a little, while there being notable inequalities in powers over the game. Either has the "right" to not cooperate at any given time. That comes with a responsibility to do so thoughtfully. But, ultimately, that doesn't make it wrong for one or the other to dig in their heels and just say, "No." There is, ultimately, no obligation to do what you don't want to. [/QUOTE]

Verification