On 2009-04-19, BG Josh wrote:
"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."
"You" as in the idealized version of You, might not be invested in their success. But in practice the GM may be invested in the PC's winning because he wants them to succeed; or in them failing because he is caught up in being the adversary.
So as I read it you (Seth Ben-Ezra) are saying that a "good" game should yield an enjoyable experience regardless of how the dice fall?
We also see the common bit of text in RPG books (paraphrased)"Lie, cheat and make stuff up and hope the players enjoy it."
In a "good" game this would be unnecessary, because the game will be fun, no matter how the random elements fall?