On 2009-04-16, Callan wrote:
Not that I'm part of the gang, but if the GM isn't interested in winning or losing, then he wont be thinking in terms of balance(whatever balance is - it's an often used and rarely defined word). If winning or losing doesn't matter to him, then if it just feels right to the GM for the spell to have a year long duration, then it does. If it feels like it should have no duration at all/not work, then it does. This ties into Moreno's post.
Same goes for making a spell that's fun - if the players are going for the fun of winning, but your not thinking about winning and losing, you wont be making a spell that's fun in that way.
There's no conflict of interest because there's no interest in balance or that type of fun.
That's all working from the idea that if a person is thinking about one thing, they are not thinking about another thing. Flicking back and forth between the two isn't impossible to do (nor would I say it's easy), but that raises the questions of how often and when?