Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2580497" data-attributes="member: 18280">KM,First off, let me admit that, in this response, I am going to sound like a bit of an idiot.  Indeed, I am going to split a few hairs here.Imagine that a D&D game is a gigantic carnival ride.  Everyone wants to have fun, so they all want to go on the ride.  Now, there's one guy whose job it is to ensure that the ride runs smoothly.  All of the pieces have to be in the right place.  This guy knows that his carnival ride cannot contain everything that every carnival ride does.  Even if can be always the biggest, always the fastest, always the best, it cannot have a portion of the track going both up and down at the same time.  It cannot be all things to all people.At the same time, the carnival ride needs constant work to keep it operating at peak form.Some people scream "Go faster!"  Some say "Go slower!"  Some say "Go left!"  Some say "Go right!"  This guy, he has to make the rails ready to go somewhere, but can't make them go everywhere all at once.  On top of that, he's got to stay on top of maintenance, or the ride will come to a crashing halt.He has bigger fish to fry than the individual fun of each person on the ride.  He has to consider the ride as a whole.  He has to consider what will make it the best ride, within the limits of his power, for the largest number of people on the ride.He has to consider that some of the people saying, "Go slower" really want the ride to go faster.  He has to consider that letting someone stand up on the ride might ruin the experience for everyone else.All of these little things that make up the ride, these are his province.  So this guy has to deal with that fact.  The pieces of the ride, and making sure that the ride is working, is more important than the momentary desires of any one person on the ride.  He has (dare I say) bigger fish to fry.Of course, if this guy is bad at his job, maybe no one wants to go on his ride.  Maybe his ride isn't fun.  He could be the worst carnival guy ever.But if the ride is fun, and the guy truly enjoys what he is doing, then that ride will be many times better than anything that doesn't have a cohesive vision, in the same way that a movie made by committee can't hold a candle to a movie that holds true to an individual director's esthetics. (In that analogy, too, we grant that if you don't care for Quentin Tarantino's esthetics, you won't like his movies.....but, if you keep going to his movies, knowing what they are like, then that is your fault, not his.)Let us simply say that we agree to disagree here.Sure, there are lots of ways the PCs can fail short of death.  But, if risking A is fun, and B is the biggest case of A, then B should provide the most fun.Failing is not fun.  Not just death, but failing at those risks that are non-lethal, too.  No one likes to fail.  Perhaps we should  eliminate all risk from the game, and have only the illusion of risk.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> I considered answering this in a way that would get me banned from EnWorld.  Truly I did.  I was merely going to suggest some other, less savoury, character types that perhaps the player might want to play.All kinds of big, strong monsters out there in the world.But, the DM shouldn't say "No" to playing a big strong monster?But the risks shouldn't be very risky?<shudder>No desire for that type of game, on either side of the screen.Why not?If Player A wants to play a dragon, why does Player A's desires override the DM's?  Is Player A playing a dragon going to enhance the fun for everyone at the table?The reality of the situation is this:PLAYERS COMPETE AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS.Every player wants to increase his own fun.  If they are not dinks, then they are not trying to do it at the expense of others, including at the expense of the DM.  Including at the expense of the work put into the setting.IF THEY ARE DINKS IT IS THE DM'S JOB TO TELL THEM "NO"!Player A's fun does not take precedence over Player B, Player C, Player D, etc., nor does it take precedence over that of the DM.This is (part of) where the DM and that carnival guy are the same person.  The carnival guy can't let a drunk customer onto the ride.  Even if drunky doesn't vomit all over the rest of the riders, there is a significant chance that he will ruin the ride for everyone.  Drunky's personal fun in this case simply cannot matter to the carnival guy.When Player E comes along with a character that doesn't fit in the campaign world, the DM has to consider him in the same light as the carnival guy does the drunk.  Sure, there's a chance that no one will get vomitted on, but how many times do you have to wash off someone's half-digested pretzels before you are allowed to simply say "No"?(And yes, I know that you said the DM can say "No".  Yet, here I go, splitting hairs again.  When can the DM say "No"?  When he feels it's appropriate?  After taking a democratic vote?  When the players tell him it's okay?  Or does it not really matter because the potential failures are so insignificant that it makes no difference what the PCs are, or what anyone chooses to do anyway?)RC</blockquote>

Verification