On 2009-04-16, Vincent wrote:
Ed, Moreno, one of the important things that makes this work is that it's a structured collaboration, it's neither "the player does whatever, the GM approves (or not)" nor "the GM does whatever." The player does some real creative work, but leaves some real creative work for the GM, and it's perfectly clear which work is whose.
(Oh! Ed! Email me, I need to talk to you about Dogs' illustrations.)
Another important thing that makes it work is that the rules overall are also, at this point in play, a tight constraint. The _ no miscast line, for instance, which is required, sets a scale: this is what size a single hit is.
There's a substantial question that you're getting at in particular, Moreno: "what causes the GM's agenda to be to make the game's world seem real and to create and play interesting monsters, without investing in their winning or losing?" It's beyond my mere blog to get into this; all I'll really say is, it's the same as Dogs in the Vineyard. "What causes the GM's agenda to be to find out what the characters will do with the town, having intense curiosity but no particular preference?" - same thing.
Mark, a terms thing, I think. I'll happily cede the word.
Callan, of course the GM is thinking about winning and losing. The GM's very curious to know which will happen, is acutely aware of the shape and bounds of the issue, and wants to create a spell that won't screw the question up.