Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8667415" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I can see how the scale of the mechanics may impact this to some extent, so that's a fair point. Some people will find heavy mechanics in this area to be distracting to what they want to do. I generally find heavy mechanics to be distracting overall, so I don't think I was considering a game with extensive social mechanics so much as some social mechanics. Yeah, we agree here. The initial comment was in response to [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] who said:And I was pointing out how &quot;should&quot; is probably not correct, because for some people and some games, that very much is the game falling apart. Emphasis above mine. That there are multiple ways this may work, not should work, is not at all what I'm disagreeing with. Quite the opposite. Some folks absolutely claim the GM should be neutral. I agree with you that it's not something that's really possible, or at least, I think it's more difficult than is worth the effort. I mean, if you want neutral, there are easier ways to get it. I think when it comes to the output of actions, the GM very much is directing the story. They may not be doing so toward some predetermined path, but they are determining in the moment how things will go. Which is fine....some amount of that is to be expected. I just like when there is input from the system as well as the GM and the players. Some amount of input beyond just the GM's conception of the NPC or situation. But as above, these are matters of preference.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8667415, member: 6785785"] I can see how the scale of the mechanics may impact this to some extent, so that's a fair point. Some people will find heavy mechanics in this area to be distracting to what they want to do. I generally find heavy mechanics to be distracting overall, so I don't think I was considering a game with extensive social mechanics so much as some social mechanics. Yeah, we agree here. The initial comment was in response to [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] who said: And I was pointing out how "should" is probably not correct, because for some people and some games, that very much is the game falling apart. Emphasis above mine. That there are multiple ways this may work, not should work, is not at all what I'm disagreeing with. Quite the opposite. Some folks absolutely claim the GM should be neutral. I agree with you that it's not something that's really possible, or at least, I think it's more difficult than is worth the effort. I mean, if you want neutral, there are easier ways to get it. I think when it comes to the output of actions, the GM very much is directing the story. They may not be doing so toward some predetermined path, but they are determining in the moment how things will go. Which is fine....some amount of that is to be expected. I just like when there is input from the system as well as the GM and the players. Some amount of input beyond just the GM's conception of the NPC or situation. But as above, these are matters of preference. [/QUOTE]

Verification