Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Einlanzer0" data-source="post: 8231497" data-attributes="member: 6788934">The overarching point I think you're making is that it's really a table by table &quot;agreement&quot; whether that agreement is literal or simply plays out organically through the soft dynamics of the group at play.Ultimately, I suppose this isn't really a matter of right and wrong (like with most things), but I am definitely strongly biased towards the notion that people are simply there to have fun - it isn't a job, either for the GM or for any of the players. If the group is having fun, they will continue to play, if they don't, they won't.But it's simply my opinion that it works a lot better to distribute GM responsibilities and therefore ownership of the game. The GM should not be given either all of the &quot;work&quot; or substantial power by default over all other players when it comes to general table etiquette and dynamics. This can lead to toxic psychologies for all parties and increases the likelihood of conflict. I think it's a problem that the core rules still peddle this idea as I see it as very, very outdated.For example, in my current campaigns one of the players manages all NPCs in combat. Another player handles the cartography. Another player keeps track of stories &amp; party inventory. This all works because everyone that's playing is a competent adult and it's a shared, cooperative experience so there's a built-in social contract. The only real difference between me and the other players is that I provide more narration as the person who has the best beat of the setting and the adventure. Even with regard to rules arbitration I'm only slightly above other players and it's only because I happen to know the rules the best in my group so they tend to defer to me. But it's not hard to imagine a situation where a player has more rules mastery than I do and me handing off much of that responsibility to them. I mean, frankly, I literally have never dealt with a situation like the one you're describing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Einlanzer0, post: 8231497, member: 6788934"] The overarching point I think you're making is that it's really a table by table "agreement" whether that agreement is literal or simply plays out organically through the soft dynamics of the group at play. Ultimately, I suppose this isn't really a matter of right and wrong (like with most things), but I am definitely [I]strongly[/I] biased towards the notion that people are simply there to have fun - it isn't a job, either for the GM or for any of the players. If the group is having fun, they will continue to play, if they don't, they won't. But it's simply my opinion that it works a lot better to distribute GM responsibilities and therefore ownership of the game. The GM should [I]not[/I] be given either all of the "work" or substantial power by default over all other players when it comes to general table etiquette and dynamics. This can lead to toxic psychologies for all parties and [I]increases [/I]the likelihood of conflict. I think it's a problem that the core rules still peddle this idea as I see it as very, very outdated. For example, in my current campaigns one of the players manages all NPCs in combat. Another player handles the cartography. Another player keeps track of stories & party inventory. This all works because everyone that's playing is a competent adult and it's a shared, cooperative experience so there's a built-in social contract. The only real difference between me and the other players is that I provide more narration as the person who has the best beat of the setting and the adventure. Even with regard to rules arbitration I'm only [I]slightly[/I] above other players and it's only because I happen to know the rules the best in my group so they tend to defer to me. But it's not hard to imagine a situation where a player has more rules mastery than I do and me handing off much of that responsibility to them. I mean, frankly, I literally have never dealt with a situation like the one you're describing. [/QUOTE]

Verification