Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 3462012" data-attributes="member: 9225">Then you have to trust the GM. This is why GM trust, along with clear communication, actually *is* the issue. Not acknowledging it outside of a formal social contract and obsessively assuming the group is a tabula rasa is not only a major problem in this discussion, but a major problem in the design community you're up-talking. It's funny you should mention FATE, because no too long ago an indie-guy who's pretty well known confessed to me that he played an awful Spirit of the Century game. It was awful because players refused to communicate and cooperate and were devoted to the idea of the GM as some kind of player-opposing force. Thanks to that, the GM had no agency at all and the game could not progress. This wasn't because the GM couldn't "railroad." It was because the players were unwilling to provide the least suggestion about where the game should lead and would only express themselves within the confines of the formal system.Should I blame Spirit of the Century for turning a bunch of players into selfish jerkwads? No -- not any more than you should blame Serenity for theoretical situations that only become a issue in the hands of a poor GM.Traditional RPGs presuppose trust and friendship. Without that, you have concerns like this:. . . 'cause see, it's really not besides the point. You have continually phrased most forms of GM intervention as a negative, from taking Mearls' "mother may I" out of its original context (scenario-sensitive character abilities) to give it a denigrating polish, to talking about the GM as somebody who thwarts player aspirations.You must discard the illusion that system exists to protect you from other people's interests. It exists to facilitate a collective interest and to ensure that its fulfillment takes a dynamic, unexpected path.I find the idea where you're afraid that your friend won't please you and create rules to protect yourself from him to be deeply socially dysfunctional. That is basically what you're describing. Plus, of course, I don't see how it actually works. If the GM is terrible and the system thwarts his desires, that the system is merely punishing one person instead of a group.Not really. The book merely says you should try and be quiet about it. Mind you, this is confusing soft advice for a rule. They're not the same thing.You've characterized the GM as the guy who hands out penalties and the player as the guys who hand out good stuff -- a consistent trend in this thread.No, they're still a mother-may-I, since the GM can simply choose not to invoke them. The fact that the GM has a extra layer of moderation in Serenity doesn't make much of a difference.</blockquote>

Verification