Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 2547674" data-attributes="member: 3424">Good grief, people are talking about the loss of DM power like it's a bad thing <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />. Like I said in der_kluge's <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=146037" target="_blank">epiphany thread</a>:And if the quote from Mike Mearls is correct, fewer players are leaving the game. You might not like the implication that giving the players more power means that more people want to be play the game, but I think almost everyone will agree that having more players around is a good thing.The question, "Why swap D&D for something that gives the DM more power over you?" goes right to the heart of the issue. Authoritarian regimes can work well, and some may even work better than some democracies, but I think most people would rather live in a democracy anyway. The same goes for D&D. Authoritarian DMs can run fun games, but I think most players would rather stay away from them anyway.So yes, the DM has the right to say no, but it is a right to be used responsibly, for the good of the gaming group as a whole. A DM who says no for his own selfish enjoyment or his own artistic vision of what the game should be will likely find himself out of players soon. A DM who lets his players bully him will likely burn out soon. As in all human relationships, there has to be some give and take between a DM and his players.</blockquote>

Verification