The difference in positions is really about what happens when the limits are reached - when a topic is hit at which no more compromise is possible.
My view is that there really is no such point. If the group is committed to gaming together - which, as [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] has emphasised, is a simple fact of the matter for many groups - then compromise will have to be achieved. Much like, if a group is committed to going to the movies together, then compromise will have to be achieved.
If there are individuals who aren't committed to the group, then of course they can just walk. But then, as prosfilaes and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] have observed, when they walk they might take others with them. If you treat the choice to game as basically a transaction among anonymous games (eg as might be the case at a convention or in a club), with no overriding obligations of participation in a collective endeavour, then you have no basis for complaining about "player revolts" or similar activities.
this is the sort of discussions that should be going on around every gaming table.
<snip>
I look at threads like this and wonder why these sorts of issues aren't being discussed in rule books. We spend thirty pages detailing different ways of sticking a sword in someone, but, we won't spend a page or three on making the game work for everyone at the table? That's some messed up priorities right there. The players handbook should be about 30% this sort of thread - how to start a group and keep that group happy.
It's fantastic advice that isn't given nearly often enough.
I agree. That is why, in this thread and some other recent threads, I've said that the DMG (pehaps also the PHB) should talk about different sorts of approaches to the game, and the way different techniques, in the hands of players and even more so GMs, can support or undermine those different sorts of approaches.
I am one who believes that you need to trust your DM
if you're ever in a game in which you can't trust the GM - you shouldn't be playing in that game. Period. It'll just be an exercise in aggravation.
I am overwhelmingly a GM, and have been for 30-odd years. And I don't really understand these remarks about "trust". What are my players expected to trust me to do? Not be a nasty person? I mean, that's pretty basic in human relationships and has nothing to do with RPGing.
But once we get into particular aspects that
are relevant to RPGing, what should my players trust me to do? To run scenarios that interweave the PC backgrounds and player priorities in roughly equal measure? Well, that is important if I'm GMing Burning Wheel, and it's a big part of how I like to GM my 4e game, but it woud be irrelevant if I was running an AD&D module-of-the-week game.
Should my players be trusting me to take them along for an awesome ride? That seems pretty important to some of the posters in this thread, but is basically irrelevant to how I run my game, and if my players came along expecting that - and expecting the corollary, that most of the energy for the game will come from me rather than them - then they would be dissapointed!
Should my players trust me to run scenarios where player skill is not relevant to outcomes? Absolutely not, which means that my games may not suit [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION]. Should my players trust me not to run scenarios in which the outcome will depend upon interrogating barkeeps about the ingredients of otherwise non-suspicious soup? Absolutely they should - I personally could hardly think of a more puerile plot device if I tried.
In other words, what players should be trusting GMs to do, and vice versa, is utterly dependent on what sort of play experience the game participants are hoping to generate. Talking honestly about the possible varieties of these, and how roles and responsibilities can be allocated to help achieve them, should be the number one priority.
If the DM doesn't explain why only certain classes and races are allowed, he's doing himself a disservice.
<snip>
the PCs aren't going to understand the setting, and neither they nor the DM are really going to enjoy themselves. The DM should try his best to make sure the players actually understand his campaign idea.
Being as open as possible about the intended scope and theme of the game and the setting from the very beginning will really help your players get into character.
Being a good DM takes a lot of work, even outside of the normal play hours. A player can just show up and wing it so I do think it is fair to let DMs dictate the direction of the game, but of course they should always be open to suggestions.
I don't disagree with any of this - but I think it
is another illustration that there are different approaches to the game.
In the sort of game I prefer to run, I want the players to help establish the scope and theme of the game, and I don't want them to just turn up and wing it. Part of getting to where I want to get to in RPGing means recognising that sole GM authority over setting and backstory isn't going to work.
A good DMG would talk about the things [MENTION=6778458]bleezy[/MENTION] has mentioned, and the things I've just mentioned, in the context of talking about different approaches to RPGing.
This thread has made me discouraged about our hobby.
The only thing that discouraged me was that someone, somewhere, thought that the soup scenario was worth publishing!
