Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="macd21" data-source="post: 7928526" data-attributes="member: 6683793">Yeah, I feel like they’re starting from a fundamentally flawed position: that there’s something wrong with the GM being the most important person at the table.The GM is generally the most important person at the table because they put in the most work at the game usually collapses without them. “But it doesn’t need to be that way,” critics contend - and it doesn’t. But it is, because it works, and people are usually happy with the way things are. “But you could implement X, Y or Z to reduce the GM’s burden,” they say - and you could, except that X, Y and Z reduce the fun of many GM’s and players, or in some cases make it harder, not easier, to run a game. Many people are already implementing X, Y or Z in their games to the extent they are comfortable with them, but still leaving the GM with the most critical role at the table.Yes, you can probably come up with a system and a social contract that results in a collaborative story telling experience that results in everyone at the table as equal participants, and the find a group of gamers who would love it. And meanwhile everyone else goes back to playing DnD, because they enjoyed it more. The GM being the most important person at the table isn’t a problem. It’s resulted in enjoyable gameplay for decades.</blockquote>