Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8338077" data-attributes="member: 16814">This is coming from a specific approach to play, that isn't required, and doesn't require authority in over the social contract, either.&nbsp; If you look at other games, the GM is just a player with a different role, and doesn't have these other authorities.&nbsp; But, in D&amp;D, the GM does have massive authorities over the game, such that I usually describe play in 5e as &quot;the GM decides.&quot;&nbsp; And this works, in play, but the extension of this to the social group, to deal with problems that are not within these authorities, is toxic, in my opinion, because it usurps what should be a shared and comanaged social space with authoritarian themes invested in the person that already has authoritarian themes in the game role.&nbsp; It's a great reinforcement system for one person being dominant over the group (and held up by the concept that you shouldn't challenge the GM in play, but that the GM can challenge you at any and all times).We don't see these same situations in other games -- the banker in Monopoly isn't looked to as the leader of the social contract when playing that game, for instance.&nbsp; Referees in sports events are not looked at this way (if anything, they're viewed negatively in the social contract).&nbsp; Even in RPG near games that feature a GM role you don't see it -- games like Massive Darkness, for instance, don't privilege the GM in social contracts at the table.&nbsp; It's only in RPGs, and then only in those that follow the D&amp;D mindset of the GM controls all that you end up with this strange assignment of authority over the social contract.&nbsp; A position that has long been abused, and still is, especially when it's claimed that the GM has the right to dictate the game because they put in the most work -- an abusive canard that continues to haunt the hobby.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8338077, member: 16814"] This is coming from a specific approach to play, that isn't required, and doesn't require authority in over the social contract, either. If you look at other games, the GM is just a player with a different role, and doesn't have these other authorities. But, in D&D, the GM does have massive authorities over the game, such that I usually describe play in 5e as "the GM decides." And this works, in play, but the extension of this to the social group, to deal with problems that are not within these authorities, is toxic, in my opinion, because it usurps what should be a shared and comanaged social space with authoritarian themes invested in the person that already has authoritarian themes in the game role. It's a great reinforcement system for one person being dominant over the group (and held up by the concept that you shouldn't challenge the GM in play, but that the GM can challenge you at any and all times). We don't see these same situations in other games -- the banker in Monopoly isn't looked to as the leader of the social contract when playing that game, for instance. Referees in sports events are not looked at this way (if anything, they're viewed negatively in the social contract). Even in RPG near games that feature a GM role you don't see it -- games like Massive Darkness, for instance, don't privilege the GM in social contracts at the table. It's only in RPGs, and then only in those that follow the D&D mindset of the GM controls all that you end up with this strange assignment of authority over the social contract. A position that has long been abused, and still is, especially when it's claimed that the GM has the right to dictate the game because they put in the most work -- an abusive canard that continues to haunt the hobby. [/QUOTE]

Verification