Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8338106" data-attributes="member: 16814">I don't see how playstyle aligns to expectations of the GM's role in the social contract.&nbsp; I've played in heavy GM authority modes, both as a player and a GM.&nbsp; I current expect to use heavy GM authority in game when I run 5e.&nbsp; I also have played other games, and played D&amp;D in other ways.&nbsp; My arguments about the GM's position in the social contract is irrespective of what game or style I'm playing in -- it's saying that whatever authorities afforded a role in the game do not result in additional authorities outside the game, which is where the social contract exists.As for the words I've chosen, it's hard to deny that D&amp;D is climbing out of a hole where it was the boy's club, or had racist overtones, or was a place where nerds, geeks, and social outcasts abused each other.&nbsp; These things are in the history, and part of the way they persisted are concepts like the GM having granted authority over the social contract in addition to their role in the game.&nbsp; This lets one person direct the conduct and culture of the table, if they are so inclined, with a much better chance of success.&nbsp; If this concept is internalized by the players, then it's even stronger of a position.&nbsp; If, instead, it's clear that game groups are social gatherings of peers to play a game where players have different roles, but the overall group is responsible for the group's social contract, then there's less chance that abuse can happen, regardless of how prevalent or not you think it is.&nbsp; Certainly, an approach that is more egalitarian and reduces possible abuse is better than one that clings to traditional views and doesn't prevent the abuse, isn't it?&nbsp; I think so.&nbsp; No big if you disagree -- again, we aren't policing each other's tables.&nbsp; But I'm still going to advocate strongly for a more healthy overall hobby.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8338106, member: 16814"] I don't see how playstyle aligns to expectations of the GM's role in the social contract. I've played in heavy GM authority modes, both as a player and a GM. I current expect to use heavy GM authority in game when I run 5e. I also have played other games, and played D&D in other ways. My arguments about the GM's position in the social contract is irrespective of what game or style I'm playing in -- it's saying that whatever authorities afforded a role in the game do not result in additional authorities outside the game, which is where the social contract exists. As for the words I've chosen, it's hard to deny that D&D is climbing out of a hole where it was the boy's club, or had racist overtones, or was a place where nerds, geeks, and social outcasts abused each other. These things are in the history, and part of the way they persisted are concepts like the GM having granted authority over the social contract in addition to their role in the game. This lets one person direct the conduct and culture of the table, if they are so inclined, with a much better chance of success. If this concept is internalized by the players, then it's even stronger of a position. If, instead, it's clear that game groups are social gatherings of peers to play a game where players have different roles, but the overall group is responsible for the group's social contract, then there's less chance that abuse can happen, regardless of how prevalent or not you think it is. Certainly, an approach that is more egalitarian and reduces possible abuse is better than one that clings to traditional views and doesn't prevent the abuse, isn't it? I think so. No big if you disagree -- again, we aren't policing each other's tables. But I'm still going to advocate strongly for a more healthy overall hobby. [/QUOTE]

Verification