Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9079724" data-attributes="member: 71699">Consider<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">GM is non-neutral because they make choices that present players with problems based on their (players') priorities</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">GM is non-neutral because they make choices that present players with problems based on their (GM's) priorities</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">GM is non-neutral because they make choices based on the game designers' priorities (as their proxy*)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">And other such permutations...</li>
</ol>What's required would be to reach a definition in common of what it means for GM to be neutral. For instance, &quot;GM is most neutral when they set aside their own priorities and follow players interests, because not advocating for your own interests is characteristic of neutrality.&quot; If all &quot;non-neutrality&quot; means is &quot;players have priorities, and GM follows them&quot; then it becomes a label for just those words.So to me, it looks like you are defining neutrality in terms of what side GM is on, where there is only one side - players'. Sim-GM should be counted among sides because they have a stake in the results of play. Or to look at it from another perspective, by your lights, what other than siding with players will make a GM non-neutral?Somewhat relatedly, what semantic difference do you have in mind between &quot;neutrality&quot; and &quot;impartiality&quot;? In past comments you've implied that GM isn't (possibly even can't be) impartial. Implying that they may or must be &quot;neutral but partial&quot;... which I assume means that you do not take them to be direct antonyms.(*Maybe unwitting-GM is a thing, and the side they take is that of the designers. Is being a proxy the same as neutrality? Regardless, I'm speaking to GMs who intend to facilitate sim play. Their choices are biased in favour of certain interests... which works either way.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9079724, member: 71699"] Consider [LIST=1] [*]GM is non-neutral because they make choices that present players with problems based on their (players') priorities [*]GM is non-neutral because they make choices that present players with problems based on their (GM's) priorities [*]GM is non-neutral because they make choices based on the game designers' priorities (as their proxy*) [*]And other such permutations... [/LIST] What's required would be to reach a definition in common of what it means for GM to be neutral. For instance, "GM is most neutral when they set aside their own priorities and follow players interests, because [I]not[/I] advocating for your own interests is characteristic of neutrality." If all "non-neutrality" means is "players have priorities, and GM follows them" then it becomes a label for just those words. So to me, it looks like you are defining neutrality in terms of what side GM is on, where there is only one side - players'. Sim-GM should be counted among sides because they have a stake in the results of play. Or to look at it from another perspective, by your lights, what other than siding with players will make a GM non-neutral? Somewhat relatedly, what semantic difference do you have in mind between "neutrality" and "impartiality"? In past comments you've implied that GM isn't (possibly even can't be) impartial. Implying that they may or must be "neutral but partial"... which I assume means that you do not take them to be direct antonyms. (*Maybe unwitting-GM is a thing, and the side they take is that of the designers. Is being a proxy the same as neutrality? Regardless, I'm speaking to GMs who [I]intend[/I] to facilitate sim play. Their choices are biased in favour of certain interests... which works either way.) [/QUOTE]

Verification