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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2584099" data-attributes="member: 18280">Third Wizard,An alternative fonts have been used for clarity, to highlight specific things, or to indicate that a particular section of text is all part of the same idea.  Because it can be harder to be clear in longer posts, as my post length climbs I often find myself trying to find ways to subsection what I am doing.  If you find them offensive, I can certainly stop.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 1)  RE:  What the DM is entitled to:I did not say at any point that the DM is entitled to more fun than the players.  What I said was that the DM was entitled to consider what would be fun for him first.  Just as each player is entitled to consider what would be fun for him first.I did say that the DM was entitled to unlimited authority within the context of the game.  But also, again and again, I pointed out that said authority exists both for tautological reasons (the players cannot obligate the DM to do anything, or obligate the DM to alter the campaign world in any way, or obligate the DM to allow them to do anything [including play]) and for game reasons (the DM has greater responsibilities and much more knowlege of what is going on behind the scenes than the players do).  I also agreed, repeatedly, that the DM who wishes to have players has to share some (but not all) of that authority with them.  Being a DM does not give you a right to have players.  A selfish DM is a lonely DM.I also said that, if the DM had something they wanted to try, and the players didn't want to try it, he was still allowed to get new players and try it.You want to try Iron Heroes. Your players do not want to try Iron Heroes.  You get a new set of (PbP) players to try Iron Heroes.  That sounds exactly like what I was talking about.2.  RE:  Commerce:I agree that the only currency at the game is fun.  The DM offers fun for the players.  The players offer fun for the DM.  Honestly, the DM offers himself fun because he enjoys DMing.  The players offer themselves fun because they enjoy playing.No one is obligated to play.  No one is obligated to DM.If everyone is getting what they want, then everyone is happy.Now, I am pretty sure that we both agree on the above, and the only thing we are disagreeing on here is the terminology.  It may seem problematically to some to consider something enjoyable in terms of a transaction.  However, within the standard sociological model, this is indeed a form of commerce.  And, despite the objections of some, it is perfectly valid to say that the players are providing the DM with fun when they play...and as much (or more) as the DM is providing to the players.  DMing is a lot of work, but DMing is fun.  If this wasn't the case, no one would DM.  They would write novels instead.It is also perfectly valid to claim that the players barter their contribution in exchange for modifications to the game to increase their own fun.  You can couch it in other terms if you don't like the commerce analogy.  I am sure that there are better analogies out there; I am just not clever enough to think of them.3)  The Net Effect of These Two Points:The DM is not obligated to change the campaign world to accomodate the players.  However, the players will frequently convince the DM to do so because the DM has fun playing with these particular players, and increasing the players' enjoyment will increase his enjoyment.  Where the change is minor, the DM might make it before even asked, or immediately when asked.  Where the change requested is larger, the DM might take longer to consider it before agreeing, or might not be willing to agree because he forsees effects of the change that would adversely affect the game.4)  How this differs from Kamikaze Midget's Theorum (as I understand it)The DM does not need the permission of players to say "No".The DM must often rely upon his own judgement as to whether a change is a minor one or a major one.The DM often has hidden information (including adventure sites) that can be affected negatively by a proposed change.  The DM has to weight the rewards of allowing a change against the additional work he must do to accomodate that change.  The DM must also weigh whether or not the short-term player fun gained by allowing the change will be greater than the long-term fun potentially lost by some of the consequences of those changes.  Because these choices may be based upon hidden information, the DM has to decide whether or not to explain his reasoning to the players or ask them to merely accept the decision.Intergroup dynamic and lack of obligation means that the players can (and sometimes should) say "we do not accept that" and stop playing.  The DM can then either decide to alter his position or seek new players.  Or someone else can take a turn DMing.IMHO, friends will not stop being your friends because a campaign fails.RC</blockquote>

Verification