Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7769446" data-attributes="member: 177">I have a big problem likening that to &quot;trust&quot;.&nbsp; It seems a bit.. revisionist, in a way.Here's a kitchen refrigerator-freezer.&nbsp; It has an ice maker.&nbsp; Does that imply I don't &quot;trust&quot; you to make ice?&nbsp; Or does it imply I've worked out a way where you don't have to worry about making ice, and can get along with more important things in your life?&nbsp; If I build you a car with a crank on the front, rather than an electrical ignition, is that because I &quot;trust&quot; you to be able to start your own darn car?&nbsp; No, it is because I haven't gotten to that point of technical sophistication yet, or have some other limitation such that I can't give you the ease of use of an electrical starter motor.Gygax and company were visionary, but they were also new.&nbsp; The entire field of RPG design was new.&nbsp; There were a lot of things they hadn't figured out yet.&nbsp; When as design question arose they typically created a specialized subsystem for it, and they patched those together.&nbsp; This isn't because it is some brilliant design centered on trusting the GM, but because the very idea of generalized task resolution simply hadn't occurred to anyone yet.Comprehensive rules do not express &quot;lack of trust&quot; in the GM.&nbsp; Comprehensive rules of 3e and 4e merely express a desire to somewhat unify experience across multiple GMs.&nbsp; Generalized rules of Fate and Cortex+ and WoD express a technical innovation that simply reduced the need for rulings.&nbsp; The loaded word &quot;trust&quot; comes from a time when people were distressed by change, and should not be trusted to accurately depict the changes and the reasons behind them, or the resulting relationships between player and GM.So, yes, I'll agree that in OS games, the GM tends to make more rulings.&nbsp; I'm fine with that.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with trust.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7769446, member: 177"] I have a big problem likening that to "trust". It seems a bit.. revisionist, in a way. Here's a kitchen refrigerator-freezer. It has an ice maker. Does that imply I don't "trust" you to make ice? Or does it imply I've worked out a way where you don't have to worry about making ice, and can get along with more important things in your life? If I build you a car with a crank on the front, rather than an electrical ignition, is that because I "trust" you to be able to start your own darn car? No, it is because I haven't gotten to that point of technical sophistication yet, or have some other limitation such that I can't give you the ease of use of an electrical starter motor. Gygax and company were visionary, but they were also new. The entire field of RPG design was new. There were a lot of things they hadn't figured out yet. When as design question arose they typically created a specialized subsystem for it, and they patched those together. This isn't because it is some brilliant design centered on trusting the GM, but because the very idea of generalized task resolution simply hadn't occurred to anyone yet. Comprehensive rules do not express "lack of trust" in the GM. Comprehensive rules of 3e and 4e merely express a desire to somewhat unify experience across multiple GMs. Generalized rules of Fate and Cortex+ and WoD express a technical innovation that simply reduced the need for rulings. The loaded word "trust" comes from a time when people were distressed by change, and should not be trusted to accurately depict the changes and the reasons behind them, or the resulting relationships between player and GM. So, yes, I'll agree that in OS games, the GM tends to make more rulings. I'm fine with that. It has nothing to do with trust. [/QUOTE]

Verification