In the new vampire 5E the table decides what the chronicle tenants are (essentially the new humanity rules). In fate the table decides of aspects pass the sniff test. The GM is always going to be in the minority in any vote. Why would a player ever rationally choose to be restricted? I'm sure if I ask my players after they got wrecked by some sanity damage in Gumshoe if they should eliminate these sanity rules they would say yes, in the long run restrictive play produces immersive thematic gaming but in the moment you'd never ask for it. When I ran my a one ring game the fact that players got damaged and accumulated shadow over time made for a really interesting story but if I had asked at the beginning of the game would you want to risk getting worse no one would say yes.
The GM may not personally have the controlling vote count, but he/she decides who gets to place a vote at all. If the players don't want to play what the GM wants to run, game over (possibly in session 0).
In any game with a volunteer GM, the GM has ultimate authority over the game. When players start paying for GM services they can draw up a contract.
Quote from: Zelen on May 30, 2021, 11:11:36 PM
In any game with a volunteer GM, the GM has ultimate authority over the game. When players start paying for GM services they can draw up a contract.
Yep.
Quote from: PencilBoy99 on May 30, 2021, 10:58:03 PMIn the new vampire 5E the table decides what the chronicle tenants are (essentially the new humanity rules). In fate the table decides of aspects pass the sniff test.
So far so good.
QuoteThe GM is always going to be in the minority in any vote.
Unfounded assumption. I've played in games with shared GMing to some degree or the other(from just letting the players participate in session 0 to actually rotating GM roles over the course of a campaign to some that will actually switch who's in the GM chair multiple times within the same session), and this has never, ever been an issue. Not. Even. Once. First, I tend to play with people who know full well that the RPG experience isn't an adversarial one. Whoever's the GM(or participating in the GM role in some limited sense) isn't just trying to screw over someone else or save their own character's hide. That's stupid and pointless and most of all, just not fun. Whoever's participating is trying to put into play stuff that will hopefully be fun for everyone. And I've never been at a table where there wasn't an understood reservation that the GM(where there is a designated GM for at least most tasks) has final say. Even if the game asks for you to do something one way, Rule 0 still exists.
QuoteWhy would a player ever rationally choose to be restricted? I'm sure if I ask my players after they got wrecked by some sanity damage in Gumshoe if they should eliminate these sanity rules they would say yes,
This example is entirely unlike the two that you gave above. The V5 one is a session 0 thing, which means literally anyone(including the designated GM) can at any point say they're not okay with the results and choose not to run or play. That just goes without saying. But again, decent human beings aren't using this kind of thing to try to fuck the GM or the other players over. It's just not something that's going to come up unless your group is already toxic as fuck. And the consensus thing in Fate only comes up when there's a question about the Aspect's applicability in a situation. It's not about adding or removing entire rules or subsystems altogether.
Quotein the long run restrictive play produces immersive thematic gaming but in the moment you'd never ask for it. When I ran my a one ring game the fact that players got damaged and accumulated shadow over time made for a really interesting story but if I had asked at the beginning of the game would you want to risk getting worse no one would say yes.
It's a known mechanic that they bought into when they agreed to play that particular game. I'm sorry that the players in your group are so short-sighted and petty.
Oh, and before anyone says anything, obviously there are plenty of valid reasons why someone might not want to run or play a game using such rules - either changing the rules or playing a different game altogether. Maybe they want a single dedicated GM to have all of the control over those things. That's fine. Maybe they know someone in the group suffers from decision paralysis or is just not comfortable making those kinds of decisions. Also fine. But all this psychoanalyzing of people that simply doesn't match up with any real evidence? Ugh, please, spare us all.
All role playing game rules are a matter of consensus, the GM might technically make the ruling, but everyone at the table (play and GM alike) are there by their own consent to have fun and can always vote with their feet if the game stops being fun. The GM has greater authority over the running of the game, power which is given to him by the players' cooperation. Role playing games work because of cooperation, rather than competition, between players and GM.
Quote from: ShieldWife on May 31, 2021, 04:55:31 AM
All role playing game rules are a matter of consensus, the GM might technically make the ruling, but everyone at the table (play and GM alike) are there by their own consent to have fun and can always vote with their feet if the game stops being fun. The GM has greater authority over the running of the game, power which is given to him by the players' cooperation. Role playing games work because of cooperation, rather than competition, between players and GM.
Yes, thank you! The people who write these "rules" do so with the good faith assumption that everyone at the table is either in agreement to do things that way(since they did decide to try that particular game, after all) or exercising their Rule 0 rights to houserule in whatever way they want to. "Your group is full of jerks who will use whatever tools at their disposal to screw over the rest of the table for their own(or their character's own) benefit/amusement" is just not something they take into consideration. It's not something they
should take into consideration, considering that's just not true of most gamers and game groups. "Gamers are petty, socially inept trolls who need the rules to keep them carefully corralled" is the kind of thinking that should be left back in the early '80s where it belongs.
Most. Gamers. Are. Decent. Human. Beings. I know sitting in one of the big internet echo chambers doesn't make it seem like that a lot of the time, but it's true. Like actually go to a convention or your local comic shop and play with some strangers sometime. I've met some really awesome players and GMs that way. And it had nothing to do with how the GM duties were spread or what specific game we were playing. They were just good people who were fun to game with and willing to go along with whatever rules we were operating under for 4 hours.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 30, 2021, 11:06:07 PM
The GM may not personally have the controlling vote count, but he/she decides who gets to place a vote at all. If the players don't want to play what the GM wants to run, game over (possibly in session 0).
This absolutely.
QuoteThe GM is always going to be in the minority in any vote. Why would a player ever rationally choose to be restricted?
For fun.
My Warhammer DM tried to make me decide as player whether my wizard should fall to temptation of Dark Powers because HE DIDN'T WON'T TO FORCE IT ON PC.
I was like - screw it, I have no fucking idea - I roll my Willpower :P
QuoteThe GM may not personally have the controlling vote count, but he/she decides who gets to place a vote at all. If the players don't want to play what the GM wants to run, game over (possibly in session 0).
QuoteIn any game with a volunteer GM, the GM has ultimate authority over the game. When players start paying for GM services they can draw up a contract.
Only... not really. GM is... well just a participator of game. His authority depends on common agreement, unlike real societies, RPG table is social contract so there's that.
If GM want to by tyrant because of ultimate authority - he can be kicked from table and someone else shall run game. Maybe even the same game, as it's not like... property or smth.
Of course if given group is full of lazy asses who do anything to not DM - then sure volunteer will have power due to other players acedia, as weak will fear the strong. But only then really.
Quote from: Wrath of God on May 31, 2021, 03:22:18 PM
QuoteThe GM is always going to be in the minority in any vote. Why would a player ever rationally choose to be restricted?
For fun.
My Warhammer DM tried to make me decide as player whether my wizard should fall to temptation of Dark Powers because HE DIDN'T WON'T TO FORCE IT ON PC.
I was like - screw it, I have no fucking idea - I roll my Willpower :P
QuoteThe GM may not personally have the controlling vote count, but he/she decides who gets to place a vote at all. If the players don't want to play what the GM wants to run, game over (possibly in session 0).
QuoteIn any game with a volunteer GM, the GM has ultimate authority over the game. When players start paying for GM services they can draw up a contract.
Only... not really. GM is... well just a participator of game. His authority depends on common agreement, unlike real societies, RPG table is social contract so there's that.
If GM want to by tyrant because of ultimate authority - he can be kicked from table and someone else shall run game. Maybe even the same game, as it's not like... property or smth.
Of course if given group is full of lazy asses who do anything to not DM - then sure volunteer will have power due to other players acedia, as weak will fear the strong. But only then really.
You might be surprised how many people will accept the GM's views if their other option is to have to take up the GM position themselves.
And yes, I've walked as a GM and let them go on to enjoy something I didn't want to participate in. I was happy they liked it, and I was likewise happy I choose to walk away. That's hardly being a tyrant.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 30, 2021, 11:06:07 PM
The GM may not personally have the controlling vote count, but he/she decides who gets to place a vote at all. If the players don't want to play what the GM wants to run, game over (possibly in session 0).
Game over, man. Game over.
QuoteYou might be surprised how many people will accept the GM's views if their other option is to have to take up the GM position themselves.
Well I in fact noticed in my post - that power of GM's over group flews mostly from laziness of other players in it.
More potential GM's in a team - the less power of current one.
QuoteAnd yes, I've walked as a GM and let them go on to enjoy something I didn't want to participate in. I was happy they liked it, and I was likewise happy I choose to walk away. That's hardly being a tyrant.
Wise choice.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 30, 2021, 11:06:07 PM
The GM may not personally have the controlling vote count, but he/she decides who gets to place a vote at all. If the players don't want to play what the GM wants to run, game over (possibly in session 0).
Quote from: Zelen on May 30, 2021, 11:11:36 PM
In any game with a volunteer GM, the GM has ultimate authority over the game. When players start paying for GM services they can draw up a contract.
Came back because I was thinking about this topic again, and it hit me just how utterly
irrelevant some of these earlier comments are. And I'm going to lay out why. Because it's after noon, I'm severely sleep deprived, and I think I might have been a little cranky when I was reminded of this. You're welcome.
Setting aside the unfounded assumptions(or if they are founded, I am actually very sorry that their group is that petty and horrible), there was a pretty simple inquiry about how can those mechanics work. And honestly, the answer is quite simple. See, by the time you get to the table, you should have been A) told what game you were going to play, B) been informed if there was anything unorthodox about it(such as a variance in how the traditionally-GM tasks are to be handled), and C) have decided to show up for the game anyway, indicating your willingness to participate in a game with such things(or, if not, have discussed it with the group and agreed upon whatever Rule 0 changes need to be made to bring it more in line with your group's tastes).
The fictional GMs in the quotes above? Obviously GMs at tables where the ABCs have simply not occurred(also, considering that
any player, including the GM, can back out for
any reason, one of those things that's so obvious to anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together that there's really never a reason to say it; it's just a truism, albeit still an irrelevant one). If you're going to meaningfully answer the question, then you have to do so under the assumption that everyone involved,
including the GM, have agreed to such a thing. Otherwise they'd just be playing something else or Rule 0'ing it, which are both totally cool.
So yeah, that's basically it. If everyone at the table knows and has agreed to the arrangement, including the GM(assuming there is a single GM; some games go a lot farther than the ones mentioned in the OP); and if they're actually decent human beings who use whatever amount of traditionally-GM control they're given to make the game more fun for
everyone at the table like they're fucking
supposed to do rather than using it to get their jollies by screwing over the other players, then literally anything from the relatively minor bennies and fate points to full-on round robin GMing can totally work.
Established agreement to do things a certain way.
Not being a total dick.
That's literally it. That is the entire answer.
Whether or not a player can leave the table is just irrelevant. They can. Obviously. But why would they do that if they've all already agreed to do things a certain way? If you don't want to do things a certain way, . . . just don't agree to it in the first place. That seems like a simpler solution to me.
Oh, and for good measure. let's turn the OP on its head. "How does investing all of the GMing power into a single person work? If a single person controls everything, they're just going to insta-kill you and take over everything with their GMPCs and just steamroll over all of the PCs and make things absolutely horrible for their players because that's just what gamers do when they get any amount of GMing authority. If a little bit of sharing the GM space turns regular players into raging douchenozzles, then giving someone 100% of the power should = 100% douchenozzle." That is, of course, ridiculous, and I sure hope it's obvious why. Good gamers + power = good gamers with power. Bad gamers + power = all that crap the OP worries about.
Quote from: GeekEclectic on June 16, 2021, 12:28:39 PMSetting aside the unfounded assumptions(or if they are founded, I am actually very sorry that their group is that petty and horrible), there was a pretty simple inquiry about how can those mechanics work. And honestly, the answer is quite simple. See, by the time you get to the table, you should have been A) told what game you were going to play, B) been informed if there was anything unorthodox about it(such as a variance in how the traditionally-GM tasks are to be handled), and C) have decided to show up for the game anyway, indicating your willingness to participate in a game with such things(or, if not, have discussed it with the group and agreed upon whatever Rule 0 changes need to be made to bring it more in line with your group's tastes).
The fictional GMs in the quotes above? Obviously GMs at tables where the ABCs have simply not occurred(also, considering that any player, including the GM, can back out for any reason, one of those things that's so obvious to anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together that there's really never a reason to say it; it's just a truism, albeit still an irrelevant one). If you're going to meaningfully answer the question, then you have to do so under the assumption that everyone involved, including the GM, have agreed to such a thing. Otherwise they'd just be playing something else or Rule 0'ing it, which are both totally cool.
So yeah, that's basically it. If everyone at the table knows and has agreed to the arrangement, including the GM(assuming there is a single GM; some games go a lot farther than the ones mentioned in the OP); and if they're actually decent human beings who use whatever amount of traditionally-GM control they're given to make the game more fun for everyone at the table like they're fucking supposed to do rather than using it to get their jollies by screwing over the other players, then literally anything from the relatively minor bennies and fate points to full-on round robin GMing can totally work.
Established agreement to do things a certain way.
Not being a total dick.
That's literally it. That is the entire answer.
Whether or not a player can leave the table is just irrelevant. They can. Obviously. But why would they do that if they've all already agreed to do things a certain way? If you don't want to do things a certain way, . . . just don't agree to it in the first place. That seems like a simpler solution to me.
Oh, and for good measure. let's turn the OP on its head. "How does investing all of the GMing power into a single person work? If a single person controls everything, they're just going to insta-kill you and take over everything with their GMPCs and just steamroll over all of the PCs and make things absolutely horrible for their players because that's just what gamers do when they get any amount of GMing authority. If a little bit of sharing the GM space turns regular players into raging douchenozzles, then giving someone 100% of the power should = 100% douchenozzle." That is, of course, ridiculous, and I sure hope it's obvious why. Good gamers + power = good gamers with power. Bad gamers + power = all that crap the OP worries about.
[Emphasis mine]
Here we see the corollary to badwrongfun, the badwrongplayer. If you have an issue with this obviously sketchy Vampire 5e rule you are:
A) Petty and Horrible
B) An Idiot
C) Not a Decent Human Being
D) A Total Dick
and
E) A Bad Gamer
Besides the obvious that it probably isn't a good debate strategy to simply insult those who disagree with you, just because you expect players to be "good gamers" doesn't mean you should be tempting them to act otherwise.
And, of course, there's the irony of requiring players to be model citizens in a game where the players are pretending to be murderers and rapists.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 16, 2021, 01:29:20 PM
If you have an issue with this obviously sketchy Vampire 5e rule you are:
Setting aside the "obviously sketchy"(not to your taste, fine; but there's nothing inherently sketchy about doing some session 0 stuff with player input), that's literally not what I said. Like not even a little bit. Let me quote some relevant parts.
Quote from: PencilBoy99 on May 30, 2021, 10:58:03 PM
The GM is always going to be in the minority in any vote. Why would a player ever rationally choose to be restricted? I'm sure if I ask my players after they got wrecked by some sanity damage in Gumshoe if they should eliminate these sanity rules they would say yes, in the long run restrictive play produces immersive thematic gaming but in the moment you'd never ask for it. When I ran my a one ring game the fact that players got damaged and accumulated shadow over time made for a really interesting story but if I had asked at the beginning of the game would you want to risk getting worse no one would say yes.
See here? The OP comes in already assuming a lot about what will happen when people use rules like this. That players simply will want easy street if asked. Some will, sure, but it's far from universal. Anyone who's seen the discussion here knows that's just not true. Plenty of people like challenge and real risk in their games. Second, just because someone
wants things easy doesn't mean they're going to screw over the other players in order to get it.
Lots of players compromise. There's just a lot of baseless assumptions being thrown out. I don't think the question in the title was asked in good faith, but I choose to treat it as if it is because it's an interesting question with an answer that's a lot simpler than a lot of people realize.
You'll also notice in my posts that I use a few "ifs," as in conditionals, in my posts. I don't use them every time, but enough that you should know that I'm saying
if his fellow players are really that bad(which I seriously doubt; I honestly think the OP's assertions are baseless),
then they are toxic, petty, etc. It's a conditional for which I don't actually think the condition has been met. I'm sorry I didn't explicitly point that out. I should have known better.
If their fellow players would actually do the things they're claiming if given the chance . . . yeah, I wouldn't want to play with them in this system
or any other, tbh.
Quote from: GeekEclectic on May 31, 2021, 03:33:04 AM
Oh, and before anyone says anything, obviously there are plenty of valid reasons why someone might not want to run or play a game using such rules - either changing the rules or playing a different game altogether. Maybe they want a single dedicated GM to have all of the control over those things. That's fine. Maybe they know someone in the group suffers from decision paralysis or is just not comfortable making those kinds of decisions. Also fine. But all this psychoanalyzing of people that simply doesn't match up with any real evidence? Ugh, please, spare us all.
And here's a bit from me where I kind of pre-empted the whole "If you have an issue with this obviously sketchy Vampire 5e rule" thing here. There are a lot of very good and valid reasons one might not want to use such rules. That's pretty obvious. I don't like 3e. I do like Fantasy Craft. I don't like Masks. I do like Urban Shadows. I have reasons for all of them. Literally none of those reasons are about assumptions(which would be wrong) about what the average player is going to do with those rules. (Other than my general assumption of good faith until shown otherwise, of course, at which point we can deal with it.)
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 16, 2021, 01:29:20 PM
Besides the obvious that it probably isn't a good debate strategy to simply insult those who disagree with you, just because you expect players to be "good gamers" doesn't mean you should be tempting them to act otherwise.
I'm insulting fictional people that I don't think actually exist, as again, I don't actually think the conditions to my if-then statements have been met. Setting aside the fact that just assuming that gamers will do the things mentioned in the OP if given the chance is pretty darn insulting. Some will, sure. Every group large enough has its bad apples. But there's absolutely
nothing to indicate that this would be the case in even a majority of groups, much less enough of them for it to be a meaningful assertion. The evidence simply isn't there. Like I wish the OP dude had just come in like "Hey, I heard about this, and it seems pretty weird to me. Could someone more familiar with these kinds of rules tell me a bit about how they worked at your table and how you kept the people now sharing in the GM duties(to one extent or another) from abusing them?" But the dude came in guns blazing with assumptions pulled out of thin air. Like . . . why just assume?
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 16, 2021, 01:29:20 PM
And, of course, there's the irony of requiring players to be model citizens in a game where the players are pretending to be murderers and rapists.
Yeah, um . . . not really sure where you're going with this last part. I expect players in my game, whether they share in any GM duties or not, to be civil and non-disruptive. If they do share in the GM duties, I expect them to use that power when they have it for the enjoyment of the whole group, just like I expect from a solo GM(I mean make a good faith effort to do so. I'm not expecting them to be perfect by any means. Sometimes they make a mistake or introduce something that falls flat, and . . . well, that's a whole different thing from being
intentionally disruptive.)
And, um, . . . yes, obviously I expect the average player to act a
lot better in real life than their characters. There are tons of things characters do in a lot of games, including the current most popular ones; and are justified in because of setting conceits that simply wouldn't pass muster IRL. I don't know why someone playing a vampire or an Orc or whatever should lower my expectations for them IRL.
Quote from: ShieldWife on May 31, 2021, 04:55:31 AM
All role playing game rules are a matter of consensus, the GM might technically make the ruling, but everyone at the table (play and GM alike) are there by their own consent to have fun and can always vote with their feet if the game stops being fun. The GM has greater authority over the running of the game, power which is given to him by the players' cooperation. Role playing games work because of cooperation, rather than competition, between players and GM.
RPGPundit, can you please ban ShieldWife?
This amount of common sense and clarity is dangerous to this forum, and really, to the hobby as a whole.
Quote from: PencilBoy99 on May 30, 2021, 10:58:03 PM
In the new vampire 5E the table decides what the chronicle tenants are (essentially the new humanity rules). In fate the table decides of aspects pass the sniff test. The GM is always going to be in the minority in any vote. Why would a player ever rationally choose to be restricted? I'm sure if I ask my players after they got wrecked by some sanity damage in Gumshoe if they should eliminate these sanity rules they would say yes, in the long run restrictive play produces immersive thematic gaming but in the moment you'd never ask for it. When I ran my a one ring game the fact that players got damaged and accumulated shadow over time made for a really interesting story but if I had asked at the beginning of the game would you want to risk getting worse no one would say yes.
You're not the first to have noticed this (https://archive.is/1D23z#selection-71.0-75.93).
Quote from: Vincent Baker
As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of an rpg's rules is to create the unwelcome and the unwanted in the game's fiction. The reason to play by rules is because you want the unwelcome and the unwanted - you want things that no vigorous creative agreement would ever create. And it's not that you want one person's wanted, welcome vision to win out over another's - that's weak sauce. (*) No, what you want are outcomes that upset every single person at the table. You want things that if you hadn't agreed to abide by the rules' results, you would reject.
And while players would never rationally choose
to be restricted, they will
between restrictions, and games which provide such choices tend to have more gravitas than the ones where the player simply decides. It's yet another reason system matters.
Quote from: Spinachcat on June 23, 2021, 11:49:46 PM
RPGPundit, can you please ban ShieldWife?
This amount of common sense and clarity is dangerous to this forum, and really, to the hobby as a whole.
Agreed. Burn the witch! (j/k ShieldWife; it's all in good fun . . . probably didn't need to clarify, but I worry sometimes)
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on June 24, 2021, 11:20:16 AM
You're not the first to have noticed this (https://archive.is/1D23z#selection-71.0-75.93).
I'm curious what they actually noticed, though. Everything in the OP is strictly a people problem that, sorry to say, no rules are going to fix. I have given it some thought, though, and instead of "how horrible are the people you game with that you would say such a thing?" I think I should have gone with something more like "How would the people you game with feel if they knew you thought so little of them?" Because he's literally accusing them of being a hair's breadth away from doing some totally underhanded stuff at the table, restrained only by . . . the traditional GM/player structure that is by far the most prevalent, I guess. The rules you
voluntarily agree with the other players to use, whatever they are, just don't have the power to change someone like that. I've never looked at a rule in
any game and thought about what the worst type of player would do with it, much less assumed that
gamers in general would suddenly turn bad if it was in play. That's just ridiculous. I reiterate, most gamers are good people. 2 decades full of con games and online games with many, many strangers(I'd estimate between 200 and 300, though I don't have an exact count) tells me that.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on June 24, 2021, 11:20:16 AM
Quote from: Vincent Baker
As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of an rpg's rules is to create the unwelcome and the unwanted in the game's fiction. The reason to play by rules is because you want the unwelcome and the unwanted - you want things that no vigorous creative agreement would ever create. And it's not that you want one person's wanted, welcome vision to win out over another's - that's weak sauce. (*) No, what you want are outcomes that upset every single person at the table. You want things that if you hadn't agreed to abide by the rules' results, you would reject.
And while players would never rationally choose to be restricted, they will between restrictions, and games which provide such choices tend to have more gravitas than the ones where the player simply decides. It's yet another reason system matters.
Yeah, a lot of players will often choose to be restricted. I've seen it happen quite a bit. There's really no reason to claim otherwise. You get the occasional power gamer or min/maxer(not all power gamers or min/maxers, of course; I've known quite a few who were perfectly able to switch gears if you were open and honest about expectations beforehand) who doesn't really seem to grasp why anyone would do so. But again, for most of them it's just a preferred play style and they'll just say "not how I like to play; I'll sit this one out." The ones who get told beforehand, are given a chance to check over the rules before agreeing to them, and then who
voluntarily agree to them and still cause trouble are thankfully few and far between.
I also noticed this:
Quote from: Vince Baker
if all your formal rules do is structure your group's ongoing agreement about what happens in the game, they are a) interchangeable with any other rpg rules out there, and b) probably a waste of your attention.
This sets up such a strawman. I know quite a few games with some rules that do some of that stuff(to one degree or another), but . . . almost never
just that. These kinds of rules tend to be a small portion of the overall rulesets they're attached to. The games in the OP certainly don't fit that description. And let's be honest. Even if it was accurate, "Other games can do that, too" is not really a compelling argument.
It's kind of like attacking D&D by saying "if all your rules do is let you fight things, you can do that in any system." Any gamer familiar with D&D will know something's not right with that argument. While combat rules are a large chunk, sure, there is other stuff there. Quite a bit of it, in fact. It's basically a non-starter because I'd have assumed something about D&D that is obviously false to anyone actually knowledgeable about the subject. Same here. I like some of Vincent Baker's stuff.
I actually find the fact that it's Vincent Baker of all people saying such things funny, considering the games he has personally made have some of those rules. I mean, he's the father of Powered by the Apocalypse ffs. I had to look that up. So I actually have my suspicions that that article is about something else more specific, because it's obviously inapplicable to the games mentioned in the OP, and definitely not true of Apocalypse World itself. Just an odd suspicion that he's not attacking
his own work here.
Quote from: Spinachcat on June 23, 2021, 11:49:46 PM
Quote from: ShieldWife on May 31, 2021, 04:55:31 AM
All role playing game rules are a matter of consensus, the GM might technically make the ruling, but everyone at the table (play and GM alike) are there by their own consent to have fun and can always vote with their feet if the game stops being fun. The GM has greater authority over the running of the game, power which is given to him by the players' cooperation. Role playing games work because of cooperation, rather than competition, between players and GM.
RPGPundit, can you please ban ShieldWife?
This amount of common sense and clarity is dangerous to this forum, and really, to the hobby as a whole.
I'm sorry to inform you but there is no such thing as common sense, more like uncommon sense....because if it was common, everyone would have it ;)