Search results

Acclaim's lawyers may care...

Really worried they should have done more work on the name....

Since many seem to agree with the idea that the GM is in some way a table leader, I do wonder if part of GM outreach/education should involve teaching leadership skills.

My personal heresy: Reduce the number of Upper planes. There are currently 17 planes for nine alignments. Furthermore, the naming conventions could use a reexamination. Several planes still come from existing/historical faiths. DnD cosmology should be just that, DnD cosmology. Pastiche is fine...

While this is true, when I say leader, I am more meaning outside the role as rules referee. I mean leader as in "primary force making the game happen."

Ideas explored in another thread gave me a thought. Do you view being a GM as a "leadership" position? I think it is often forced into this roll. Examples: GM is often the primary party for rules knowledge. GM is often the primary rules teacher. GM as provider of gaming location. GM has to...

Very agree. I think GMs often take on too much responsibility for everyone having overall fun. All you can control is how people feel about your own contributions.

So this is incorrect for two reasons: 1) A GM isn't trying to win, they are trying to challenge, under the expectation that a challenge will be more enjoyable. The Players are trying to win, not to challenge the GM. Under your example of Chess, both sides are trying to win ideally, with...

Feel free :)

It was missing what I most needed it for: Space ship rules.

Some actual crunchy rules. Like, bare minimum on a lvl of the Van Richtens Guide to Ravenloft. Spelljammer was deeply disappointing.

They are tedious. Both as a DM and as a player for me.

The intent is to not endorse any specific viewpoint, though I do have my own which I can illuminate if needed. What I am more speaking to is behavior and conduct towards each other. People mistaking taste judgements for moral judgements. As I didn't make clear earlier: I would say that...

I would certainly agree that a given game may have its own culture which governs how one see to running it. But there will be a large amount of overlap I would expect, with only very distant extremes within the hobby not having at least some things in common.

This is what I am referring to. Calling a game decision "a lie" is a moral judgement. It's not merely saying doing it this way is suboptimal or won't accomplish goals for a GM. It is stating that conducting the game this way would be immoral. That doing this causes harm to the game experience...

I apologize for my initial lack of clarity. Much of my initial post was an immediate, off the cuff musing, which I expected to develop further if this threat persisted.

The connotations are purposeful. It is part of my contention that people viewing these as morals rather than preferences is part of what blinds some GMs to other perspectives.

So something in another threat got me thinking. So many GM style arguments come down to clashes of what can be called "Guiding Morals." What I mean is, having a few key principles of how a game should be run, priorities of play, that you are willing to bend other considerations to serve. So...

To elaborate: The issue for me is that Fighter and Barbarians, and to a lesser extend Paladins, can often feel like they don't contribute as much out of combat. Rogues and Bards get skills (and spells for Bards) which allow them to help in the other pillars of play outside of combat.