Search results

Then in reality you have 4 DMs who collaborate on one setting. If I did that sort of thing then of course I'd have to collaborate with the other DMs. I wouldn't like that setup though. It seems like a setup driven by the fact no one really loves being the DM so you split duties. Either that...

Interesting. Munchkin would be something different. I was playing in the early 80's on. Until recently it never even occurred to me to think of it any other way. It's probably why I've rejected everything coming out of WOTC from 4e onward. Certain mechanics are dissociative to me. They...

Agree with above. I operate in the DM makes an offer of a style of game and players sign up or don't. I realize that is not the way it is for a lot of people. I do believe the setting is absolutely a DM prerogative though. That would include things like races, classes, spells, magic items...

The DM can decide and change their mind. The DM though never has to change his or her mind. There is a difference in those two things. The DM is the only remotely neutral party when it comes to an adjudication of the rules. The players want it to go there way even if that weakens the game...

You've never had one player who just won't let something go? I've never had an entire group arguing against me. It is almost always one player or sometimes two. Edit: In my games, I don't reward bad behavior. A big argument would be bad behavior. If in the end arguing is a fruitless exercise...

I had to make slots a real thing in the world. Otherwise they are plot coupon and that would have ruined the game for me. So slots, memorization/preparing of spells was all very real. If you always see a divide between the mechanics and the gameplay then I can see how you think as you do but...

I think houserules should be in session 0 and presented to the group. They can comment and the DM could modify but in the end the DM has final say. On the spot decision in my view should not be an argument. If you think the DM rolled the wrong dice or did some mechanical mistake then by all...

My nuance would be that people are aware of their capabilities and many in the world would know their class name in most cases. The more generic classes like Fighter and Rogue probably have some more specialized names. Wizard and Cleric though I'd say know their classes very well. The point...

They can't force it. The players don't have to play. The DM has final say over his campaign setting and the rules for playing in that campaign. He has no say on who plays in his campaign. But my wait list is full so I don't need players like you. Provide a great campaign you are passionate...

A DM knows his own environment. He is not going to design a game no one wants to play. If what he likes is not popular he probably just won't DM. And you use such strawmen all the time I wonder if it is even worth rebutting at this point. A DM has the final say. Having the final say does...

You don't know what a Turing machine is to make that comment. A Turing machine describes a computer language and it's capabilities and not an actual physical machine unless you want to low level assembly language to be your Turning machine. Almost every language including assembly is a Turing...

They do have the final authority. That though doesn't equate to what was said. I think if your game is humming along, then you just don't recognize it or your players are all just whatever is fine. No. In a roleplaying game, players will often choose poorly when it comes to what their...

Bagpuss, your overall post was better than mine at explaining. The referee concept is a good one. In the NFL, the referees are the final arbiters. The players are not inferior in any way but the role of the DM is to be the arbiter.

I may be coming at this from a very experienced DMing perspective who has seen a lot of things. So a brand new DM probably should explore a bit because you don't know what you like until you experience it. My theory though is that a DM will like to DM the types of games he likes to play in as...

Maybe it is stage of life. My players if they didn't like what I did would just not play in the game. No harm no foul. And there isn't much DM/Player hostility. We take rule 0 (DM Final Arbiter) as a given. Some of them have run games. Our games aren't identical so I imagine the things...

You would probably know being you. Is there some bad blood here that I missed? Did Kobold Press lose a deal with WOTC?

There is a difference between absolute authority, though I'd say final authority, and someone who can't be questioned at all. Yes the DM cannot be overridden by the players. The players do have the ultimate veto though. My analogy is a store owner. You can't demand I carry a product but you...

The only criticism I have with WOTC rule 0 in the current book is that it is not rule 0 that has existed in D&D for 5 editions prior. I think it is a fine sentiment. Propose all the rules changes you like and many may become the rule. For his particular campaign, not the game, the DM though...

I agree and the Viking Hat is a straw man. Anyone can have an opinion and there are times and places to express it. During a session is not one of them. The final decision on the campaign setting is the DMs. Because if I hate the idea the game will never succeed. It will be defeated on day...

No one thinks they are infallible. The role though does not function well without that power. Players if given exactly what they claim to want will destroy the game. The DM's job is to make the getting there hard which will be fulfilling when they do actually get there. There is nothing to...