On 2009-04-18, David Berg wrote:
That StWT structure is exactly what I used in my example. Ralph, the GM's judgment criteria can't be a wrangling point if (a) the whole group agrees that the GM gets final say, and (b) the GM does his best to "get it right". Shouldn't the group be able to agree that "GM doing his best" is good enough? In my group, this works well, and includes a collaborative spirit where the players may help the GM "get it right" without devolving into challenges.
P1: "GM, I think it'd be more realistic if Y happened, not X."
GM: "Player, it's X, because of feature A."
P1: "Okay, I see where you're coming from, but I still think Y would be better."
GM: "Does X completely destroy your ability to believe in the fiction?"
P1: "No. But Y helps more."
GM: "Well, X happens."
If the conversation doesn't end there, the player is being a dick. Likewise, if the player says "X does destroy my ability to believe in the fiction!" without making a good-faith effort to accommodate X, the player is being a dick. Right?
On the other end, if the GM just says, "That's how it happens, I'm not going to help you understand why, nor will I remind you of the causal elements in teh fiction that you may have forgotten," then the GM is being a dick. At least, in my game he is. Apparently not in StWT...?