Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 3458730" data-attributes="member: 9225">I think this represents a problem with the institution of GMing. There's a whole bunch of communication between people that's missing in this whole thing. The GM doesn't regulate rolls in isolation from the needs of the group. The misconception is that the GM has power in order to impose story, when the GM has power in order to inspire performance. This works in a number of ways:1) The GM represents less aggressive players and augments their voices.2) The GM promotes alternatives to cliched solutions (like shooting that guy, which is pretty cliched).3) The GM makes risk significant by representing elements that are out of player control, making player actions meaningful instead of solipsistic.If you're not interested in these things and/or don't trust the GM -- and if you don't communicate with the GM, then I suppose this institution isn't for you. But the role of GM presupposes open, friendly communication. But I would submit that this problem represents a relationship that should not exist in *any* play group. Basically, you need to treat other people like friends working together to have fun. If you're unable or unwilling to do this by, for example, suggesting to the GM that your Complication come into play, that's a problem -- and not a problem with the system.There are a couple of problematic assumptions here:1) You think the GM should appreciate something? Why don't you say anything?2) You assume that it's all about the GM, when the fact is that the GM is looking to entertain the group. That's what makes the GM grant rewards.The alternative you suggest has its own problems:1) Why the hell do I have to be limited to effectiveness within my relationships? This evinces at least as much distrust for the player as the Serenity RPG rules -- and probably more.2) This limits channels of effectiveness to cliched relationships, but the fact is that the series, movie and players all challenge those cliches. Cliches are also a problem because of what they are. They limit dynamic explorations of the situation and character because they say that you'd best act only when such and such a situation comes up, and it punishes players for changing characterization.Why are you assuming that the relationships here are positive between players, while the GM exists to hose them? What kind of screwed up GMing is that? Now, let's get back to the example. In a game, a situation like this should be imposed in these situations:1) It's easy for the character to overcome. The GM knows the player has the points and ability to overcome it.2) There are alternatives. Maybe it's not easy, but maybe somebody better play the world-weary vet and ask if the wet behind the ears Alliance trooper really wants to play it this way.3) It's a complication that arises from previous failure. This is an RPG. Sometimes, this situation means that River might actually die, just as it meant that Wash died.4) A combination of the above.Outside of these situations, it's not a very entertaining situation -- and really, good and bad scenario design isn't something a game system will necessarily influence.</blockquote>

Verification