On 2009-04-17, Seth Ben-Ezra wrote:
"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."
This makes sense to me. It's really just a variation on being a game designer in the first place. When you design a rule, you care about outcome (in this place, winning and losing). However, you're not vested in *who* wins or loses, but in crafting a superior experience for the players which provides the context for the *players* striving to win.
I now have a nagging sense that I've just stated this point in a way that I can understand, but that I may have muddied the point for everyone else.
Oh well. Let's hit the submit button and find out!