Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Testament" data-source="post: 2579527" data-attributes="member: 21833">Well, RC gets quoted because he posted second, but this is adressed to BU and RC.I'm getting the distinct impression that we're functionally saying the same thing in two different languages.  Or more accurately, two different philosophies that lead to the same destination.At the end of the day, the DM's still in charge, that's an immutable fact, and the position of DM CANNOT exist without that concept.  Where I see us differing is that while I belive firmly in the rights of players to haev some say in the running of the game, others believe that the GM has the right of absolute authority over the direction and style of the game, as a kind of reward for their increased responsibilites. <Sweet drunken ninja jesus, that looks a lot worse in print than it is!>.DragonLancer, Jasper, I've never advocated the PCs being the sole focuses of enjoyment in the game, but I think (and this is all opinion) that there has to be a give and take structure here.  I try and work with players to maximise their enjoyment, without sacrificing my own.  I still say no, on a regular basis, but only after I've looked at the situation and tried to find a way to make it work.  I reiterate what I said last time, the GM's primary responsibility, the one that ultimately tramples every other one, is to ensure that everyone is having fun.  In terms of the players having fun, that need not be immediate (players hate it when they're about to die, they love it when they survive by the skin of their teeth a round later as a short-burn example), but long term, everyone should be having fun.  Rules arbitration, game design, all of that comes AFTER this responsiblity.  That long term, for the record, can be measured in any number of ways, over the session, over multiples, over an hour, whatever, the end result needs to be fun.Nutshell is, I'm arguing for a level of compromise, RC and BU are saying that compromise is less important.  I'm arguing democracy, they're arguing belevolent dictatorship; its Locke v Hobbes all over again. That's how I'm understanding it, and both of you have the right to correct me if I'm wrong on this.Correlation does not equal cause.  I'm actively avoiding reading any sort of attack in that last statement too, because I personally believe that neither philosophy is intrinsically superior.  I just find the absolutist style irreconcilable with my own methods.  And I've also got a surplus of players.First part, damn skippy.  Second part, true to a point.  And I don't think I'm gonna convince you and BU of that, and vice versa, so I'm agreeing with you guys to disagree on that count.</blockquote>

Verification