Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8254777" data-attributes="member: 16814">I think, again, that the difference here is authorities -- yes, your players change things, but only can do so with your approval.  This isn't a dig, it's a very important distinction and allows for types of play that use this tool to maintain coherency in themes and vision and events.  It's exactly how I wield my authority when running games that have the GM role set up with this authority.  This is contrasted by games where the GM does not get approval authority -- players can introduce things that the GM can, at best, challenge through the mechanics and, if the player succeeds, the player can assert this over the GM's desires.  Of course, if running this kind of game, the GM should be leaving those desires at the door so this isn't a problem.As much as you allow and even encourage the players to have input into your games (and I'm the same way), it's more of a benevolent dictator situations -- you can always say no and that's within the structure of the game and the social contract.I think, fundamentally, this is the difference -- can the GM say 'no', where can they say 'no', and for what reasons can they say 'no.'</blockquote>