D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Oofta]

Suppose someone assert this - what does it have to do with GMs being "power hungry and abusive"? Nothing at all!

Which was my point: you asserted that various posters described GMs as power hungry and abusive, but in fact NONE did.

If you can't think of any reason why someone would think a roster is a good bit of game design, other than that they think GMs are power hungry and abusive, well that's on you.

I think different things work for different games. Whether that be points, a roster, hard and soft moves or whatever. That doesn't mean they're universally good or that my game would be better because of it which is something people have pushed. I simply disagree.

If you can't understand why having constrictions on the GM that the players know about can be detrimental to the enjoyment of the game for some people, that's on you.

 

[pemerton]

Okay. And? I mean, I tweak monsters all the time so I wouldn't count on it in my game. On the other hand I will give the players general idea of health status.

I've never said I can totally divorce myself from the game rules. If I'm watching TV I don't forget I'm watching TV. If I read a book I'm still reading words. Doesn't mean I can't get immersed and involved in the story.

I never suggested you can't get immersed. You were the one who made assertions about the limits of immersion, not me.

 

[Oofta]

BY "ongoing events of the world that are a logical chain from goals of NPCs" etc, I take it you mean things the GM has made up and is imagining but that are not necessarily yet revealed to the players.

The PCs know what I believe they should know or have uncovered. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

If you have a point, make it.

 

[pemerton]

I think different things work for different games. Whether that be points, a roster, hard and soft moves or whatever. That doesn't mean they're universally good or that my game would be better because of it which is something people have pushed. I simply disagree.

OK. So why did you assert that others think that GMs are power hungry and abusive?

 

[Oofta]

I never suggested you can't get immersed. You were the one who made assertions about the limits of immersion, not me.

Some aspects of the metagame would harm my immersion. Just like "Behind the Scenes" shows do.

 

[pemerton]

The PCs know what I believe they should know or have uncovered. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

If you have a point, make it.

I'm just trying to clarify what you mean by some of your jargon.

 

[Oofta]

OK. So why did you assert that others think that GMs are power hungry and abusive?

People have stated that controls on the GM are a universal good with no explanation why. They just assert it as truth. That makes me try to guess why they believe what they do because they won't explain.

Not all games have to operate the same. In fact over the past half century the most popular games don't have hard constraints on the GM. I don't think their necessary, it seems like they don't harm the popularity and growth of games that do not have them.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

"Blindly" can mean doing things carelessly, "without direction or purpose," not just in the absence of knowledge.

Understood

So, your assertion is that when you go exploring, you know nothing whatsoever about the area. Nothing, at all, can be learned about it without physically going there first. That claim sounds outright bizarre to me.

Umm… I made no such claim… you might re-read what I wrote (“indirectly via research”)…

Then, if you would, call out others when they do it too. Obviously you aren't required to, but it just rankles a lot when I see TONS of hyperbole, but it only gets called out as a problem when folks of a particular position use it.

And what position is that? Seems you and I agree that not all encounters should be balanced, if I’m reading one of your responses to another poster correctly.

I'll be honest, yes, I did infer that. I appreciate both the clarification and the humility required to make it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And what position is that? Seems you and I agree that not all encounters should be balanced, if I’m reading one of your responses to another poster correctly.

That having a functional system doesn't prescribe that it be used in the most soulless way possible. That the GM being able to predict (not know with 100% certainty, but reasonably predict) the relative strength of a fight means that fight is "balanced," and "balanced" is a horrible affront. I mean, even here, you've used the word "balanced" as a dirty thing to be avoided in most cases!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

That having a functional system doesn't prescribe that it be used in the most soulless way possible. That the GM being able to predict (not know with 100% certainty, but reasonably predict) the relative strength of a fight means that fight is "balanced," and "balanced" is a horrible affront.

So, those who oppose your "position" play "the most soulless way possible"? Do you really mean that? Or am I misinterpreting your intent here?

I mean, even here, you've used the word "balanced" as a dirty thing to be avoided in most cases!

Have I really? Is "dirty thing to be avoided in most cases" what I meant when I said "not all encounters need to be balanced"? Or are you back to inferring something that is not there and/or using hyperbole again?