Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 3462266" data-attributes="member: 9225">Because it assumes that there isn't a basic, two-(well, multi-) way relationship between players and the GM where the players talk about what they want in the abstract and the GM's agenda is based on giving it to them. The tricky part is that the GM exists to satisfy this in ways that the players don't necessarily expect; that's one of the traditional pleasures of gaming and why that privilege exists.There's an especially troubling bit of rhetoric that's making the rounds that claims that this basic bit of civility and friendship is something that actually has to be hard-coded into the game itself -- that I can't trust my friends, but have to have a mechanism in a book to make them talk and listen. I think it's an incredibly socially damaging philosophy. But the fact is that this relationship is not a rule, but a precondition to use *any* game.But then again, it might be that this rhetoric exists because people are doing different kinds of gaming than I am. I game with friends; people I would almost certainly see in other contexts. But nowadays, it seems that much of the community is devoted to:1) Games over the internet/VOIP.2) Games between recruited groups through game stories and networking sites.3) Games at conventions.4) Theoretical play, where people plan campaigns they will probably not execute, not as a sideline, but as the main use of the game.People involved in this kind of thing might need that extra structure and might not be able to assume friendship. But the most popular Type 1 games are fanfic-based RPs with no rules at all, and Type 4 requires no social activity at all, though its adherents may talk about what they think *would* happen.2-3? Maybe. Spirit of the Century/FATE is designed for this kind of thing. But Serenity is, I suspect, designed for the more traditional group of buddies.</blockquote>

Verification