Do you think Keith Baker is a poor person to cite for the design philosophy and construction of Eberron?
If not, then why is his authority so suspect?
I'm fine with KB. He has a lot of great ideas. However, they have little to no impact on how I would run Eberron if I ever did. I think setting authority / canon is of little value and, from my perspective, anti-D&D.
But this does exactly what I keep talking about. You start by presuming you have the trust, respect, etc. of your players.
Earning the players' trust and respect is one of the most important things a GM ever does. Why do we always skip over the "trust has to be earned" part?
I only skip over it because I play with people I already trust. I can only discuss earning trust in the context of D&D theoretically as it is not something I have ever needed to do. I am just not going to dive deep in uncharted waters. My advice - game with people you trust!
@Maxperson is one of them. There are others, but as I do not wish to run afoul of prior moderator admonishment, I will not mention some of them.
I disagree with you. I have seen many of
@Maxperson's comments here and on other threads and that is not how I would characterize them as a DM.
Okay. We have people in this very thread who claim being GM instantly confers them absolute authority over all parts of the game. What am I to conclude from that?
My guess, without seeing the post, you either misunderstood the post or it was taken out of context or they were being intentionally inflammatory. or something similar
Because I believe--very passionately--that if the game is exactly as these folks describe, and they are extremely eager to cite passage and verse to prove how righteous their authority is, then that game needs to put ENORMOUS emphasis on how critically important it is to never, ever abuse such ridiculous levels of authority; to work as hard as humanly possible to earn the amount of trust being demanded from players; and to put player interests as the highest goal in most, if not all, situations.
I don't think you are seeing what they are describing though. You are seeing what you think they are describing and that, IMO, is a distortion of reality. As I have said before, that could equally apply to my perspective.
Given how much people have pushed back on even the very idea that the GM might occasionally need to sacrifice absolute maximum personal fun in order for the group to have a better time overall, I don't think this passion is unjustified. In fact, I think it is extremely justified, precisely because people push back SO hard on the very notion that putting your players first is sound policy.
IDK, again I don't see people taking it to the extreme you do. I think there is a lot of truth to what you say, but you always seem to take it such an extreme that it is very hard to agree with you. You seem to think if a DM says they will not allow dragonborn in their game that this is true for every game they run and and they don't compromise ever. That is not what I see from the vast majority of posters here (there is one I can think that is like that though).
I have tried many times not assuming the worst, when it comes to these conversations. Then I get folks--like
@Maxperson --who resist every attempt I make, no matter how congenial, to get them to step away from claims like GMs having "absolute authority" over their games.
I have had many interactions with Max and disagree with them on some things, but think I know them well enough at this point to think you are wrong about them. I am not going to go fishing for them, but I have seen them make posts about compromise, working with players, etc. If they are arguing in the extreme is probably, like you, to make a point.
