howandwhy99
Adventurer
That's a 5 year old attempt to rewrite history. DMs describe to the players the gameboard behind the screen and move the pieces according to the direction of the players. They apply the rules, a code for players to decipher, but they don't actually get a turn. No improvisation is required. Role-playing, the mastery of a pre-existing role, is actually enabled by the rule design, and scheduling and hosting and table rules and so on should really be up to everyone.I don't agree. 'Referee' is only one of the roles a GM has. They are also the storyteller, the players' opponent, the role-playing facilitator, the schedule coordinator and much more!
Bad games and players can lead to referees becoming "masters" over others, but games don't need to be designed or played that way. I suggest they were designed to remove arbitrary decision making by DMs originally.Again, I strongly disagree. D&D is a board game welded to a cooperative storytelling experience. It's not one or the other, it's both. Some groups lean in one direction, others lean in the other, but traditionally D&D incorporates both aspects.
This is because strategic gameplay is in now way antithetical to storytelling. Both can happen, either in different parts of the game or even simultaneously.
And goal setting and planning (strategizing) is defining of games and irrelevant to storytelling.
Do 2e or 3e D&D books appear confused to a believer in The Big Model? As has been loudly said. They are confused from the point of view of D&D as a strategy game too. But people play them anyways. They have their own points of view.So anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is 'confused'? This is exceptionally arrogant. I'm almost impressed.
But not convinced.