Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9022307" data-attributes="member: 42582">When I think of the GM as a player, I do not reach a dissolution of the distinct roles altogether. In this respect I follow Vincent Baker and John Harper and Luke Crane.There is nothing about a game that requires every player to have the same function within the scope of the game. Consider tag, or football.I have explained upthread the difference that I see between refereeing in free kriegspiel or Braunstein - that is, making a decision based on expert knowledge that is subject to external conditions of correctness, as to how the modelled situation would unfold were it real - and GMing a non-austere-dungeon-based RPG.The latter does not involve judging in the way the former does. It involves making up new bits of the fiction, often in response to bits of the fiction introduced by the players (in the form of action declarations).I think this is pretty clear. And in the context of Suits's framework, I think it's pretty clear that it is a type of play, provided that it is shaped by &quot;lusory means&quot;.A GM agenda can spell out those means. As per the Lumpley principle, a group of RPGers might stumble upon such means without having it spelled out in a written text authored by someone else.Again, I think this is all pretty clear. I don't see the need to make heavy weather of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9022307, member: 42582"] When I think of the GM as a player, I do not reach a dissolution of the distinct roles altogether. In this respect I follow Vincent Baker and John Harper and Luke Crane. There is nothing about a game that requires every player to have the same function within the scope of the game. Consider tag, or football. I have explained upthread the difference that I see between refereeing in free kriegspiel or Braunstein - that is, making a decision based on expert knowledge that is subject to external conditions of correctness, as to how the modelled situation would unfold were it real - and GMing a non-austere-dungeon-based RPG. The latter does not involve judging in the way the former does. It involves making up new bits of the fiction, often in response to bits of the fiction introduced by the players (in the form of action declarations). I think this is pretty clear. And in the context of Suits's framework, I think it's pretty clear that it is a type of play, [I]provided that[/I] it is shaped by "lusory means". A GM agenda can spell out those means. As per the Lumpley principle, a group of RPGers might stumble upon such means without having it spelled out in a written text authored by someone else. Again, I think this is all pretty clear. I don't see the need to make heavy weather of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification