Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Paul T, November 25, 2006, 07:49:19 PM
Quote from: Wade L on December 01, 2006, 03:14:25 PMEither way, I hope my subset of experiences is useful to the conversation - I am finding more and more all my focus in designing or running games is aimed at the social end of things rather than the creative end of things, because I find the social end is both far more important than the success or failure of a game, and harder to get right.
Quote1) Your essay seems to portray one way of assigning leadership roles as "bad", and others as "good". Do you think it might be more productive to look at this in terms of goals and outcomes? Your "worst case scenario" seems like a bit of a straw man. I'm not debating whether or not the traditional GM role can have negative effects, but rather suggesting that it would be more productive to look at what effects each model of leadership distribution has. Given that the traditional model of GM is a popular one, it would be surprising if it didn't have some positive effects.
Quote2) Your list of leadership roles associated with being GM doesn't include pre-existing statuses that I think are important to how the role is normally percieved. Things like "most experienced gamer", "the person everyone likes" or any other social status indicators. A lot of dysfunctional groups, specifically the one I talk about in my above post, are the result of tension between the GM role and these social roles. Have you left these out because you see them as outside the scope of game design, or because you don't think they're relevant?
QuoteAnd then there was a humorous parody of play of the game by some ice-weasel obsessed fans (or so I choose to believe).