thread: 2005-04-25 : Technical Agenda
On 2005-04-30, Emily Care wrote:
Hi Ben,
Agreed. No system will or can be entirely "complete".
Your example maps with Vincent's wording: "I consider this pretense socially destructive." Bullying through "my guyism" is using the lack of conscious acknowledgement that we are having interpersonal interactions via the imaginery elements for a socially distasteful purpose. In the absence of structures to help avoid this, intervention by human agency is required.
The social tasks of a gm can be functional. The breadth of the creative task a gm handles can be fun. However, the reason a sole gm has been necessary for the last 30 years, is because the rules of games have been socially inadequate (among other things).
We're finally getting to the point where we can play nice on our own. If we choose to have a single gm, it's because we may value the ability of an independent viewpoint to provide adversity or help mirror & focus the issues we are exploring. Not because it's the default way to organize the groups' creative contributions & avoid social conflict.
There are aspects of the body of oral culture that are necessary & good that are now becoming part of the written textual culture of gaming. This makes functional and fun gaming accessible to more people than in the past. Also, it may allow people who are not—& would not want to b—part of the oral culture the ability to just play, providing enough on their own to be able to have fun, instead of needing a large social apparatus that they may not be hooked in to.
best,
Emily
