Recent content by EzekielRaiden

But the GM is beholden to no one. Why would words achieve anything? The GM does what she wants. Words are irrelevant.

How can one abuse authority that is absolute? Absolute authority permits you to do anything. That is what makes it absolute!

I completely agree! But when I asked for discussion for HOW one does this, for how one should go about trying to fix a smaller breakdown of the table's function, you know what I was told, repeatedly, by several different people? Some variation of "you just HAVE to trust me[/the GM]." Which, as...

Have we read the same thread? Seriously? You and others have presented opinions far more strident than mine. Often, folks have done so while explicitly recognizing that they haven't even read the text in question!

Well, while this would very much not be my cup of tea, you have at least made it clear and gotten your players' explicit consent to occasionally deceive them, which removes a significant part of the sting. It wouldn't be for me, but that's irrelevant. That is not my base complaint. It does...

One of my greatest frustrations with the "traditional GM" role as described by several people here and elsewhere (meaning both in other threads on this forum, and in other places on the internet, e.g. links people give me about "FKR" stuff) is that this is not only not mentioned, I see things...

They have not said so here. But they have said so. Bloodtide, Max, and some I have ignored as a result of interactions in this thread.

I mean, when several people in this thread explicitly reserve the right to do these things whenever they feel it necessary, what am I to conclude?

Okay. This is a good reply. But it seems to me that it is (perhaps excessively) summarized laconically as: "Stop doing those things." Or, at the very least, "Avoid those things as much as you can, and if you really have to, do it only under direst need."

But then you aren't doing this invisibly, behind-the-scenes. You aren't relying on what is unspoken. You are speaking it aloud. You most likely also don't go out of your way to prevent the people in the group from knowing you've done this, I assume? May even check in with the players on how they...

I have been told (by non-professionals, so take it with a grain of salt) that I might have neurodivergent traits, so it's not entirely surprising that you see a similarity there. I would not call that "cynical" personally; that seems far too harsh. Instead, I would say that it seems cavalier...

How can one "foster a spirit of sincerity and co-operation" when one is secretly modifying the rules whenever one feels like doing so, concealing the actual processes by which player actions produce consequences, and employing techniques like illusionism or fudging?

[Edit: Please ignore this post. Accidentally double-posted an old, incomplete draft because I was closing tabs and thought I'd failed to post it. I apologize for any confusion.]

My point is that rules are by far one of the most effective tools for helping GMs identify where their skills are mediocre to poor and correct that behavior so that, even if it doesn't become great, it at least becomes pretty okay.

And how exactly do the players communicate this when the GM is beholden to no one and especially not to the players?