Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9679284" data-attributes="member: 71699">I feel like this touches a bit on what a game is, and what it should mean to be playing a game. I think it is normally counted essential to playing a game that the outcome is not preordained. It's not settled prior to play.So as to the role of GM, it cannot be to preordain the outcome. If it were, then GM would prevent players from genuinely playing a game. It would be more akin to acting according to a script: the actors may well go through some unscripted motions and enjoy certain experiences but it cannot be said that they are playing a game.One possible response to your thought-experiment could be to say that it is the GM's job to set up the board but not to preordain the outcome. And so to deny that the GM described exists, or if they do exist to say that their mistakes are larger and more egregious: they're not administering or refereeing a game. I suppose one could say they are not really a GM (they've fallen outside what ought to be properly referred to by that label.)Then as to valid-GMs, those occupied in playing a game, what is the difference from the perspective of the players from their setting up the board or some mechanics doing that? To give an idea of what I mean, suppose rather than GM deciding C is dead, the game rules had them roll for it at the start of play. Perhaps the result will be how many actions players will have to reach C, and half of the possible results rule out reaching C in time to save them. For that half, according to what I've laid out above, it seems that players are no more involved in playing a game than had GM decided.If that is right, then it's not the use of GM or mechanics to decide, it's the preordaining that is mistaken.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9679284, member: 71699"] I feel like this touches a bit on what a game is, and what it should mean to be playing a game. I think it is normally counted essential to playing a game that the outcome is not preordained. It's not settled prior to play. So as to the role of GM, it cannot be to preordain the outcome. If it were, then GM would prevent players from genuinely playing a game. It would be more akin to acting according to a script: the actors may well go through some unscripted motions and enjoy certain experiences but it cannot be said that they are playing a game. One possible response to your thought-experiment could be to say that it is the GM's job to set up the board but not to preordain the outcome. And so to deny that the GM described exists, or if they do exist to say that their mistakes are larger and more egregious: they're not administering or refereeing a game. I suppose one could say they are not really a GM (they've fallen outside what ought to be properly referred to by that label.) Then as to valid-GMs, those occupied in playing a game, what is the difference from the perspective of the players from their setting up the board or some mechanics doing that? To give an idea of what I mean, suppose rather than GM deciding C is dead, the game rules had them roll for it at the start of play. Perhaps the result will be how many actions players will have to reach C, and half of the possible results rule out reaching C in time to save them. For that half, according to what I've laid out above, it seems that players are no more involved in playing a game than had GM decided. If that is right, then it's not the use of GM or mechanics to decide, it's the preordaining that is mistaken. [/QUOTE]

Verification