Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Benjamin Olson" data-source="post: 9072724" data-attributes="member: 6988941">I don't completely agree, though I think these are good points to think with, and I appreciate the framing. I particularly like that tying player agency to a lack of GM rules discretion reminds me of the question of whether free will can exist in a universe with an all-powerful God.But ultimately I think you are putting too much emphasis on the formal "constitution" of a table and campaign rather than how it actually functions. A table can vote on everything can still actually just follow one domineering person's will. Similarly, and more commonly, a table can talk a big game about the GM being some sort of absolute monarch, the almighty god of their universe, while at the same time (just like many of history's more successful absolute monarchs) said potentate mostly actually seeks out and follows consensus opinion on how things should be done, using their executive discretion only sparingly where they deem it absolutely necessary (with how they construe necessity often making the vital difference between enlightened philosopher king and tyrant). Not a form of government I'd endorse in real life, but for an rpg, where certain decisions are best made behind the scenes to avoid spoiling important narrative surprises, I'll risk a little more executive vigor.And, indeed, I feel like an approach to rules that is overly inflexible also potentially reduces player agency. If a player has a creative solution for a problem that is questionably within the rules what gives a better feeling of agency, having a rules debate and vote over the matter (even one ultimately resolved in their favor) or having a GM just say it works? I think that particular scenario probably depends on the people involved, but for me personally some executive rules flexibility in the right hands can certainly be conducive to a sense of player agency rather than a barrier to it. Of course if only the wrong hands are available I would favor the approach you outline.But overall what I'm trying to say is simply that I think you're basically right, but emphasizing form over function. I think most successful tables I've been at have basically followed the bullet points you give to one degree or another, but more or less all of them have formally insisted that the GM was some sort of figure of sole despotic dominion over rules, at least within wide constraints, and ascribed ultimate setting authority solely to them as well. The secret to success is for the GM to know that no matter how much people claim they're okay with an absolute monarch, they actually want them to govern as a constitutional monarch like 95% of the time, and whether or not they solicit formal submissions of setting elements or anything like that they should be listening for anything and everything players think to contribute to the setting and working it in wherever deemed acceptable.</blockquote>

Verification