Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DinoInDisguise" data-source="post: 9673054" data-attributes="member: 7045806">I think this “trilemma” presumes the GM’s role is a mechanical; input-output, like a flawed algorithm that needs debugging. But in truth, the GM is a participant in the fiction, the primary interface to the world, and a co-creator with the players. Trying to remove collaboration with the GM in the name of increased agency is deeply flawed.The GM isn’t a vending machine for content; they’re a collaborator, a scene partner, and the players’ interface to the world. Player choice doesn’t happen in a vacuum—it happens in response to how the GM presents the world, reacts to interest, and builds momentum based on what the players engage with. That back-and-forth is what prevents any of these three “failure modes” from being actual failures.If you try to avoid those modes without the GM as an active collaborator, then yeah, you run into problems. But once you treat the table as a shared creative space, the “trilemma” disappears. It’s not about choosing between too much, too little, or a narrow band of options. It’s about active communication and building together.We shouldn’t try to minimize the GM in pursuit of some idealized notion of total player agency. We should recognize that the GM is a human player at the table too, and treat them accordingly. Pretending the GM is a mechanical servant to player choice is the foundational error here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DinoInDisguise, post: 9673054, member: 7045806"] I think this “trilemma” presumes the GM’s role is a mechanical; input-output, like a flawed algorithm that needs debugging. But in truth, the GM is a participant in the fiction, the primary interface to the world, and a co-creator with the players. Trying to remove collaboration with the GM in the name of increased agency is deeply flawed. The GM isn’t a vending machine for content; they’re a collaborator, a scene partner, and the players’ interface to the world. Player choice doesn’t happen in a vacuum—it happens in response to how the GM presents the world, reacts to interest, and builds momentum based on what the players engage with. That back-and-forth is what prevents any of these three “failure modes” from being actual failures. If you try to avoid those modes without the GM as an active collaborator, then yeah, you run into problems. But once you treat the table as a shared creative space, the “trilemma” disappears. It’s not about choosing between too much, too little, or a narrow band of options. It’s about active communication and building together. We shouldn’t try to minimize the GM in pursuit of some idealized notion of total player agency. We should recognize that the GM is a human player at the table too, and treat them accordingly. Pretending the GM is a mechanical servant to player choice is the foundational error here. [/QUOTE]

Verification