Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7349093" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Sure, this is very likely the case. But then this is more about the GM using the game mechanics responsibly, so to speak. Ideally, he won’t be pushing an agenda. But it certainly seems possible, no?This goes back to it being more a case of GM performance. Separate of the rules or mechanics or even the chosen style, the GM can perform well or poorly. Pemerton’s premise and much of the discussion presumes that the GM in examples of his chosen style will perform per the ideal, and that GMs in examples of a more GM driven style will of course perform poorly. Now, we can discuss how a player driven style leaves less room for the GM to fully take hold and drive the game as the sole creative force...that’s fine. I can see how sone of the mechhanics of such games make that less likely. But by the same token, a GM driven game need not be a case of the GM thwarting player creativity. I feel my style as described seems very much in line with the folks in the thread who are arguing in favor of player driven play. Yet my game contains “worldbuilding” in the sense that I do have GM authored elements that I introduce into play.However, the elements I introduce do not rob my players of agency. Ultimately, I feel he’s eatablished a false dichotomy based on trends. They are not the absolutes he portrays.Sure, a clever GM can surprise players even when they know ahead of time the kinds of things that will come up in play. I wouldn’t argue otherwise.But I don’t think that the GM adding something entirely mew and separate of what the players have pre-established as desires for play must be bad. In fact, I think such things can add quite a bit to a game.</blockquote>

Verification