Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5726618" data-attributes="member: 6668292">In my post, I included the thought that the GM knows more than the players. Then I used two examples of why the GM might be able to make a more informed decision than the players.(1) In the first, the player wouldn't get the PC he wanted, and it would change the campaign world away from player wants.(2) In the second, the players don't know about the dragons being insane/controlled, and thus the PC would suffer a very ill fate if you let him have his request. And, if you retconned the world, you'd be robbing the players of the fulfilling feeling of unwrapping this mystery later on since they've been working on it for so long.Oftentimes, you know things as the GM that the players do not know. This allows you to make a more informed decision than the players in many situations. To some groups, this makes the GM a logical choice when deciding who should be making decisions on what's best for the game. That is, the players have to juggle some of the variables of what makes a good game, but the GM has to juggle all of the variables of what makes a good game, since he knows what's going on behind the screen.To this end, some groups think that the "GM knows best" simply because he knows most. Can you at least see why people would knowingly and logically agree to a mutually acceptable social contract where the GM gets to make calls that include "no"?</blockquote>