Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2549675" data-attributes="member: 23012">There are two different accounts of the relation between DM and players underlying much of this discussion:(1.) Hobbesian Account.&nbsp; The game posits a limited amount of 'power' that must be divided in some way amongst the players and DMs.&nbsp; Some people think that it is great that 3e 'distributes' more power into the hands of the players, whereas others decry this development.&nbsp; On this view, there is a built-in assumption of 'confrontation' between the DMs and players -- i.e. the DM has interests that conflict with the players, and each group seeks to use the rules in order to 'advance' their respective interests.&nbsp; (2.) Rousseauian Account.&nbsp; The game is a collective effort to 'have fun'.&nbsp; Everyone understands that the DM should generally be cut some slack and have the right to make key decisions, given that she has done most of the work in developing the world and the adventures.&nbsp; At the same time, though, the DM wants the players to have fun, and thus tries to accommodate their desires and interests (as much as is reasonable).&nbsp; There is an implicit social contract here that everyone is working towards the same goal, and agreements about how the game should run are premised on this common goal.I would never want to play in a group that operated according to the first interpretation of DM-player relations (high-school is long over).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Akrasia, post: 2549675, member: 23012"] There are two different accounts of the relation between DM and players underlying much of this discussion: (1.) [i]Hobbesian Account[/i]. The game posits a limited amount of 'power' that must be divided in some way amongst the players and DMs. Some people think that it is great that 3e 'distributes' more power into the hands of the players, whereas others decry this development. On this view, there is a built-in assumption of 'confrontation' between the DMs and players -- i.e. the DM has interests that conflict with the players, and each group seeks to use the rules in order to 'advance' their respective interests. (2.) [i]Rousseauian Account[/i]. The game is a collective effort to 'have fun'. Everyone understands that the DM should generally be cut some slack and have the right to make key decisions, given that she has done most of the work in developing the world and the adventures. At the same time, though, the DM wants the players to have fun, and thus tries to accommodate their desires and interests (as much as is reasonable). There is an implicit social contract here that everyone is working towards the same goal, and agreements about how the game should run are premised on this common goal. I would never want to play in a group that operated according to the first interpretation of DM-player relations (high-school is long over). [/QUOTE]

Verification