Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8338610" data-attributes="member: 16814">Um, the other poster that was directed at agreed that this was a suitable description of their position.&nbsp; They've caveated it only by saying that other people won't stand up for themselves and need a protector in the form of the GM, which is the same thing in a different phrasing.The argument that someone might avoid conflict is not a valid complaint to my position, either.&nbsp; Everyone at the table is responsible for standing up for the social contract -- the GM is not privileged with authority nor burdened with duty any more than anyone else at the table.&nbsp; If no one at the table is speaking up, then there's a problem that putting the GM in charge won't solve, either.&nbsp; And what if the GM is the one abusing the contract?No, stating that it is the duty of the GM and that they have special authority to enforce the social contract merely because they've shown a modicum of ability to run a game is tantamount to just handing a random person the responsibility -- there's nothing at all that qualifies a GM for the duty over anyone else at the table, and nothing about their role in the game that does so, either.&nbsp; Instead, everyone is responsible for calling out behavior they see as a problem or leaving the situation.&nbsp; The idea that this is not feasible because people usually are unable or unwilling to do so is part of the reason the unhealthy assumption that the GM will supervise the social space (and do a better job of it, which is just silly) persists.&nbsp; And why we get arguments that cannot avoid the statement that you need to treat fellow RPGers as if they are in need of supervision by a GM.But, please, if you have a different take, explain how you think a GM is best qualified for the duty to supervise the social contract and why the other players need such supervision.&nbsp; [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] is on the record that this is so, and hasn't shown it at all, just insisted that this is how he's seen it needs to be -- RPGers need protection from GMs because they're largely unwilling to stand up for themselves.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8338610, member: 16814"] Um, the other poster that was directed at agreed that this was a suitable description of their position. They've caveated it only by saying that other people won't stand up for themselves and need a protector in the form of the GM, which is the same thing in a different phrasing. The argument that someone might avoid conflict is not a valid complaint to my position, either. Everyone at the table is responsible for standing up for the social contract -- the GM is not privileged with authority nor burdened with duty any more than anyone else at the table. If no one at the table is speaking up, then there's a problem that putting the GM in charge won't solve, either. And what if the GM is the one abusing the contract? No, stating that it is the duty of the GM and that they have special authority to enforce the social contract merely because they've shown a modicum of ability to run a game is tantamount to just handing a random person the responsibility -- there's nothing at all that qualifies a GM for the duty over anyone else at the table, and nothing about their role in the game that does so, either. Instead, everyone is responsible for calling out behavior they see as a problem or leaving the situation. The idea that this is not feasible because people usually are unable or unwilling to do so is part of the reason the unhealthy assumption that the GM will supervise the social space (and do a better job of it, which is just silly) persists. And why we get arguments that cannot avoid the statement that you need to treat fellow RPGers as if they are in need of supervision by a GM. But, please, if you have a different take, explain how you think a GM is best qualified for the duty to supervise the social contract and why the other players need such supervision. [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] is on the record that this is so, and hasn't shown it at all, just insisted that this is how he's seen it needs to be -- RPGers need protection from GMs because they're largely unwilling to stand up for themselves. [/QUOTE]

Verification