Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="happyhermit" data-source="post: 8154356" data-attributes="member: 6834463">Not &quot;baggage&quot;, just context, which was my initial point. I also stated that &quot;...the GM is very much not a Player...&quot; (in my most preferred games) which is quite different that what you are saying I literally said, even if it is quite similar. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Ok, I can understand the point of this much better than the ipso facto argument. But I would make a few points;Having fun isn't predicated on being a &quot;player&quot;, at all. You can have fun being a GM in a game, watching a game, or freeform play outside of a game, heck you can have fun working.GMing doesn't have to be about having fun, in a particular moment or even overall. It can be about delving into serious issues, it can be therapy, it can paid labour.Maybe I should just stop there and get to the larger point; &quot;The GM should have fun because they are a player&quot; just isn't very compelling to me in this context. &quot;Fun&quot; and &quot;player&quot; just aren't that inextricably linkedPeople, probably, who knows. Earlier in this post you will see where the distinction was lost, it's not hard even when the subject of discussion. Seriously though, what I think is important is why somebody thinks it's useful to say the GM is a &quot;player&quot;, even if they are not a &quot;Player&quot;, or the other way around. My point is that the ipso facto definition isn't useful here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="happyhermit, post: 8154356, member: 6834463"] Not "baggage", just context, which was my initial point. I also stated that "...the GM is very much not a [B]P[/B]layer..." (in my most preferred games) which is quite different that what you are saying I literally said, even if it is quite similar. :p Ok, I can understand the point of this much better than the ipso facto argument. But I would make a few points; Having fun isn't predicated on being a "player", at all. You can have fun being a GM in a game, watching a game, or freeform play outside of a game, heck you can have fun working. GMing doesn't have to be about having fun, in a particular moment or even overall. It can be about delving into serious issues, it can be therapy, it can paid labour. Maybe I should just stop there and get to the larger point; "The GM should have fun because they are a player" just isn't very compelling to me in this context. "Fun" and "player" just aren't that inextricably linked People, probably, who knows. Earlier in this post you will see where the distinction was lost, it's not hard even when the subject of discussion. Seriously though, what I think is important is [I]why[/I] somebody thinks it's useful to say the GM is a "player", even if they are not a "Player", or the other way around. My point is that the ipso facto definition isn't useful here. [/QUOTE]

Verification