AmerginLiath
Adventurer
Surprise, we’ve gotten off topic!
I disagree with the thesis of this thread, based on how I’ve always played campaigns. I’ve roleplayed across editions of D&D and many other games for about 35 years now, and I’ve only run two short campaigns of my own as a DM or GM in that time (both of which were limited-runs) yet been active in structuring the story of campaigns that have run for decades...as a player (as the occasional back-up DM for a session or two).
The fact is that the storyteller role of a game master and the number cruncher/referee role aren’t necessarily the same — I’ve personally never been able to get an interest in constructing NPCs and encounters numerically or calculating XP (despite working over a decade professionally in mathematics, so it’s not difficulty of the numbers) but am all about introducing story elements either free-form behind the screen or when allowed as a player. Perhaps it’s a maturity of the groups that I’ve played with that we’ve separated those roles to a degree where multiple people are adding elements of story that flesh out the world (including running a side game here and there that add back to the main narrative as the referee/“show runner” GM edits the new story into the broad narrative).
That’s how Greyhawk’s story was formed, if you read about the Lake Geneva campaign. If Gary Gygax was willing to relax his control over elements of character and storyline to let his players add new kingdoms and the like into his world, why must you hold your dice is such an iron grip? It’s important that one referee make Rule Zero calls, but there’s no reasons why multiple people can’t add to the building and growth of the narrative of a world and story — if anything, that’s how a homebrew lasts beyond one campaign, as it becomes something shared between the group and not just somewhere a DM has allowed his players to visit (that DM still “owns” the particular story being told in that game, like the writer of a given episode credited among a writers room crafting a television series together).
I disagree with the thesis of this thread, based on how I’ve always played campaigns. I’ve roleplayed across editions of D&D and many other games for about 35 years now, and I’ve only run two short campaigns of my own as a DM or GM in that time (both of which were limited-runs) yet been active in structuring the story of campaigns that have run for decades...as a player (as the occasional back-up DM for a session or two).
The fact is that the storyteller role of a game master and the number cruncher/referee role aren’t necessarily the same — I’ve personally never been able to get an interest in constructing NPCs and encounters numerically or calculating XP (despite working over a decade professionally in mathematics, so it’s not difficulty of the numbers) but am all about introducing story elements either free-form behind the screen or when allowed as a player. Perhaps it’s a maturity of the groups that I’ve played with that we’ve separated those roles to a degree where multiple people are adding elements of story that flesh out the world (including running a side game here and there that add back to the main narrative as the referee/“show runner” GM edits the new story into the broad narrative).
That’s how Greyhawk’s story was formed, if you read about the Lake Geneva campaign. If Gary Gygax was willing to relax his control over elements of character and storyline to let his players add new kingdoms and the like into his world, why must you hold your dice is such an iron grip? It’s important that one referee make Rule Zero calls, but there’s no reasons why multiple people can’t add to the building and growth of the narrative of a world and story — if anything, that’s how a homebrew lasts beyond one campaign, as it becomes something shared between the group and not just somewhere a DM has allowed his players to visit (that DM still “owns” the particular story being told in that game, like the writer of a given episode credited among a writers room crafting a television series together).
You are 100% right about DM & players being invested in each other and "the game". If either side is not, that campaign is not going to last long.......or be fun. I do not know about all of you , but that's why I play ...to have fun ! Otherwise what is the point .
