Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9264028" data-attributes="member: 71699">[USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s latest indirectly helped me get a bit clearer on what was bugging me. I'll try to lay it out.Where GM is just another player (pGM) in resolving the situation it's meaningful to include them in finding resolution-Rw welcoming and resolution-Ru unwelcoming. Where GM isn't a player, it's not (nGM). This maps to the sort of testimony you hear like "I just put the trap there, it's up to players to stumble into it" and all that ilk. When a Traveller nGM inserts an encounter, it's up to players what happens as a result. When a Traveller pGM inserts an encounter, they take a side. This proposed disavowal fits with what Edwards says in the video you link: GM should leave to players how conflicts are resolved because only players have a stake in it. Was it really right to picture Traveller pGM's side-taking as identical to that of players?It's not so much that GM necessarily a player, but whether they are or are not a player they have additional power, and that power changes their relationship with resolution of the situation. Suppose Traveller pGM has a stake in NPC-Jo terminating the players' characters. It's unwelcome to Traveller pGM that the PCs survive. Consistent with their side-taking, they don't want that. And for the sake of argument let's agree that termination isn't welcome or wanted by the players.A reading of Baker's arguments cited in and linked from the OP that I find appealing, is that what Baker cares about is the unwelcome and unwanted from the perspective of players. So what happens when GM is counted a player?I'll leave it there. The above sketches out an explanation for much more, but would value thoughts on these facets before committing to them.</blockquote>

Verification