@edgerunner- you asked me to let you know when I was available, but I haven't heard from you. I didn't know with the spectacular end of the other answer if you'd abandoned this chat also, but let me know if not, and you still wanted to discuss.

@BESW To a certain extent, I totally agree. But in another way, I disagree, as there are certain responsibilities and roles that the GM has vs. other players. The GM is definitely in a different role than in other games; the closest I can say is the AW engine (which is one of the reasons I'm so taken with that rules set also). But there is still a dichotomy between someone who is playing and someone who is running. I've seen some that don't have this, and those are totally different IMO.

@wraith808 Yeah, I meant that the GM and the players are never adversarial; they're always collaborative participants in a mutual endeavor. The NPCs (and sometimes the GM, through aggressive compels) can be adversarial to the PCs, but at the table everyone's rubbing their hands gleefully in anticipation of the awesome stories coming out of that conflict.

If they're not, someone needs to speak up and get that fixed.

@BESW Ah! I get it, and totally agree. Though I'd never thought of the relationship as adversarial other than in the frame of 'Killer DM' in the other context either.

@wraith808 It shouldn't be, but in many games (my experience is in D&D 3.5 and 4e) even when the text is saying "work together" the content is driving a wedge between the GM and the players.

Knowledge checks that make ignorance the default state of the players, GM screens, and so forth.

Especially when the GM is also the final arbiter of the rules, it's very easy for a GM to turn into The Fun Police.

@BESW That's true. I've always tried to stay away from that, and be impartial at best, so I guess that's why that angle hadn't occurred to me.

@wraith808 Same, but I've felt the alluring tug of Rule 0 Dictatorship, and I've seen it gets its claws in others.