Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Staffan" data-source="post: 9622109" data-attributes="member: 907">Speaking of selective quoting, what he said was "That then dovetails to the purpose of rules in gameplay. If the players' goal is success, the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players. A good system enables that by moving questions of success or failure to a die roll or some other disinterested mechanic rather than relying solely on GM fiat."So if you're playing an adversarial game, the GM's job is to try to defeat the players. But in that situation you don't want the GM to be the one who decides questions of success or failure by fiat – you want the mechanics of the game to be impartial.I would compare this to a game of Imperial Assault (a Star Wars-themed dungeoncrawler board game with some RPG-like elements). It's a game for up to five players, one of which is the Imperial Player and the others play rebels. When I am the Imperial player in Imperial Assault, I try my damnedest to stop the other players from achieving their goals. The game does put limits on what I can do – I "only" get so-and-so many points of reinforcements each round, and I have cards I can play but those are limited resources, and I have more knowledge about the scenario than the other players do. I will deploy my troops where I think they'll be most useful, and I will focus-fire players to the best of my ability because if I deal enough damage before they have a chance to recover I will significantly downgrade their abilities. And of course, the other players are doing their best to achieve their goals by thinking tactically and hopefully using their own abilities as best they can. I'm happy if the other players win, but I'm not going to throw the game in their favor to let them win. If they're going to win, they have to earn it.(Side note if you're ever playing Imperial Assault as a rebel: your goal is almost never to kill all the Imperial troops. You usually have a goal set by the scenario, though sometimes you don't know the details before starting. But the Imperial troops are almost always an obstacle between you and the goal, not the goal itself. It is easy to lose sight of this.)But this is a particular playing style, and it's not always appropriate for doing in an RPG. That's what he's talking about in the paragraph before the one quoted above: "That underscores the importance of a session 0 or similar tool that the group can use to get on the same page. Since this is voluntary, we all need to agree and actively support the stakes we want to set. If we are not on the same page here, the game is off the rails before it begins." So he's not saying "This is what all games should be like." He's saying "If you want that sort of game, this is how to do it."</blockquote>

Verification