On 2009-04-16, Moreno R. wrote:
Mmmm.... I am old enough to have played some old-style (pre-Dragonlance) AD&D 1st edition, where the GM had to do a lot of these decisions... and one of the bigger problems was that is was very, very difficult to find a GM who would "get it right"... the GM usually were divided in "monty haul GMs" (or "pushovers") who would give you a double-damage fireball at first level, and "stingy" GMs (or even killer GMs) who simply considered their job to thwart anything that the players wanted from the game. Because anything could "ruin" the game.
Why do you think that being in the GM's seat would turn a player who would push the game "his way" when playing a PC, into a model of equity?
If you have a "good GM", OK. But then, with a "good GM" (with a adaptable definition of "good") you don't even need a game system, right? He would rule in the best way every single time...