As a secondary point, is non-mechanics outcome authority always parpuzio?Yes.
The issue is that parpuzio is somewhat like giving a name to a food that is far too spicy hot for ones own tolerance, let alone taste.
Ie, a misleading name, if one enjoys a certain amount of spice. Because the naming given is simply a result of an overload of spice - thus it damns all spice use.
Depends on what you mean by "mechanics." Some of the games we know have rather sophisticated speaking-distribution rules which impose mechanics constraints without fortune mechanics.Sophisticated enough speech/speaking distribution rules basically are board game mechanics. May as well be passing around cards and tokens.
If they don't become full on board game mechanics, then they are 'parpuzio'.
But again the question is: How much spice do you want to use?
Traditionally the question is take that there's 'persuade the GM' and there's 'good GM'ing' where the GM is just 'running the world'.
On reflection I'm not sure I parallel Moreno's position
but that kind of "play to convince the GM" somewhat returned to be felt during the sessions.I'm not sure if it's a translation thing, but the way it's put, it's as if there can be a point (in non board game play) where there ISN'T convincing of the GM. Rather than simply considerably less of it/play does not soley revolve around convincing the GM.
I'd answer in the thread, but I'm waiting. I'm pretty sure I don't have a place there, as yet. More in the 'say it for yourself' stage.
Edit: Okay, call BS on me. In regard to one of the topics, I replied