So, on to ANOTHER topic about Tabletop Gaming that many, many people have various opinions about: Game Master and Player co-operation. What does this mean, you might ask? Well, in most Tabletop Roleplaying Games, there will be a gathering of players to play. There are typically two distinct roles: the Game Master and the Players. The Game Master, for lack of better terms, is the one that grants the players a ‘game’ to play in, rather it be a module, a campaign, a world, a universe, etc. He is the one that runs the events, characters, plots that will make the game go forward (or backwards) and will be the judge for rules and how things play out. The Players, for themselves, are the people who create characters/monsters/things to which will walk into this game, experiencing what the Game Master has to offer. These games are usually prepared in advance for both the Players and the Game Master. Both have things to think about and prepare for the upcoming gathering. So, there will come times were things contradict or conflict arises between Players and Game Masters. In most cases, there will be a disagreement on rules, on events, on stupid shit… On many things. In the end, the question remains: Should the players be compromising for the sake of the Game Master? Or should the Game Master Compromise for the players?