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="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 3703169" data-attributes="member: 22882">Actually, rules can very easily change the "fact" that roleplaying games are DMed by human beings - I've *played* RPGs that were not DMed (or GMed, just so you know this is not a semantic quibble).  Are the better?  Worse?  For the most part, they're just different, and they're different in a variety of ways.  They're all, admittedly, played with human beings, though.Yes.  None of those people possess in-game or out-of-game authority over the other players by virtue of the game system, however.  Their ability to impair the experience to the point where the only way to win is not to play is limited by their possessing a limited amount of control over said experience.Quite possibly so, but you could say this of any RPG, including ones without a GM.  Nor does this justify the position that REQUIRING a good if not great GM is a boon to the game.You're arguing that the BENEFITS of a good if not great GM justify the RISK of an average to poor one.  I even largely agree with your conclusion, although I would disagree with some of your reasoning.What you are not justifying, however, is the position that requiring above-average competence and commitment from one of the players makes the game better.  A system that allowed for exceptional play but did not require it would seem to be superior, because it would provide the same reward without the attendant risk.</blockquote>

Verification