NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7560103" data-attributes="member: 16814">The burden, then, is on you to show it, and you've so far offered nothing but your bald assertion.  No, you cannot have the GM as both final and absolute arbiter and have the caveat that they must observe group consensus "to some degree".  You've contradicted yourself, here.If you'd like to say that GMs are often agreed to have final decision on the rules, with the understand that they will use the rules as written (or agreed) as the baseline and only arbitrate in corner cases or in situations the rules do not cover, then, sure, I can be much more understanding of this as a common playstyle.  But, it's very important that the GM rule is based on group agreement, so she's not the final arbiter of how the game plays, just of the ceded areas.Almost every game played doesn't follow your model as presented.  The GM as the referee is a common trope, yes, but that's limited by the group dynamic -- the idea that it's the GM's way or the highway is false, and not how it actually worked. If a GM began breaching the understood social contract, things occurred just like in every other case where someone breaches the social contract -- arguments and disagreements with social consequences outside of the game.  It's ridiculous to state that RPGs altered the basic social underpinning of shared hobbies.Take a referee in football, for example.  You can make the same arguments you've made, but the reality is different -- if the ref isn't following the rules of the game closely and only making calls where they're allowed the judgement by the social contract, bad things happen.  Refs in football are constrained by the rules just as much as the players. You postulated that jerk GM, why are you suddenly shocked by it's appearance?  Or, are you personally identifying with the bad example you've presented, in which case... weird. I disagree that the right metric is united player opposition -- violation of the social contract is what I'd go with, as that varied from table to table and does not require a full mutiny.  As for the rules holding no power unless backed by the players, this is a trivial statement that has little to do with your statements that the GM has all of the authority and the players can just leave if they don't like it.  Please tell me you don't really see those two things as synonymous. Huh?  I'm not the least vexed, nor have I made an ad hom.  I've responded directly to your presented (multiple times) points and challenged them strongly.  Do not confuse strong opposition with emotional or insulting opposition.  The only thing here that might have crossed a line is a mild bit of derision.I've followed just fine, I'm disagreeing that you can redefine the discussion with bald assertions and questionable limitations so that it supports your arguments.  The funny bit is that the line at the end of the part you snipped was a challenge for you to present your case using only good behavior at the table.  I reiterate that challenge.  Can you assert that the GM is the final and sole arbiter of the entire game without resorting to an example of bad behavior and claiming that the players' only recourse is to flee?</blockquote>

Verification