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: 2587131" data-attributes="member: 18280">In other words, decide that your fun is more important than everyone else's?KM, you seem to believe that the meaning of the word "selfish" as you apply it to DMs somehow does not apply when you say it here.You can talk around it in thousands of ways, I feel sure, but at the end of the day intergroup dynamics always come down to one essential fact:  sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.If you don't want to get a little, fine.  You are not obligated to give a little.You, however, seem to have some expectation that it is your "right" to get a little without giving anything.  Expecting everyone else to give over their fun game to meet your needs is more than a little selfish.  It is quintessentially childish behaviour.Whether or not one has to cede a degree of their own "fun" for the benefit of the group is more than a semantics argument.  As much as I enjoy the game, I don't enjoy all of the work all of the time, nor do I enjoy having to tell a player that no, his character cannot begin play with six adamantium swords and a minor artifact that he didn't pay for (happened today).   However, that is part of the job.  Because I want something from someone who is not obligated to give it to me (my players are not obligated to play), I sometimes have to do things that interfere with my personal "fun".  That is a substantial difference between our positions.BTW, I am curious whether anyone except KM still believes that this distinction is a "straw man"?Paranoid how?I stated from the beginning that I have the absolute authority to veto anything within the context of a game that I am running.  Even if a player truly wanted to destroy my work, they do not have the ability to do so.However, if I am presenting chocolate chip cookies, I prefer that the players I present them to are the kind of players who like chocolate chip cookies.  I am not the slave of the players.  I do not have to DM for anyone.  I choose to DM for people who increase my enjoyment of the game.It isn't my job to ensure that every potential player has fun.  It is only my job to ensure that those players whom I choose to DM for have fun.  Period.  Whether or not "there is a solid chance, especially with new players or people new to the hobby, that someone won't have fun with it" is immaterial.  Moreover, ensuring that anyone has fun at all is only my job insofar as I decide it is.Nor does it have to do with kids and their rebellious tendencies.  I do admit that what you are presenting does give the impression that you are either rather young, or rather naive.  If I offer a game that you want to play in, I am not being selfish.  There is no obligation, and it is an altruistic action on my part. If I offer a game that you do not want to play in, I am not being selfish.  There is no obligation, and it is an altruistic action on my part. If I demand that you play in a game that you do not want to play in, I am being selfish.  Now I am attempting to impose an obligation. If I demand that you run a game the way I want you to run it, I am being selfish.  Now I am attempting to impose an obligation.Here's another thing about "fun".  I've been giving it a bit of thought over the weekend, and I disagree that the purpose of D&D is to have fun.  I mean, yes, the game is supposed to be fun overall.  Yes, the game is supposed to be entertaining.  But that does not mean that this is the only purpose of the game. You can easily say the same thing about movies.  Going to the movies is supposed to be entertaining.  Does this mean that movies are supposed to be fun?  Sure, frequently.  Most movies, most of the time, have to be fun or going to the movies would be unbearable.  However, about a year ago a friend of mine convinced me to watch The Deer Hunter (1978).  This is a great movie.  It is not, however, a fun movie.  Deliverance (1972) is not a fun movie, either, nor is Jack the Bear (1993).  But these are all great movies.  American Pie (1999) is a fun movie.  However, it is not in the same class as The Godfather (1972) or Philadelphia (1993).  The grimmer, sometimes hard-to-watch films do have their fun moments in some cases, and you can certainly have fun watching them or talking about them later, but their purpose is not to be fun.  Yet they are entertaining.A D&D game relentlessly modelled after Boyz n the Hood (1991) might be unbearably grim.  On the other hand, one modelled completely for fun (ala the D&D Cartoon, or even Dungeons & Dragons:  The Movie [2001]) presents a game world that is stripped of its meaning.For me, all fun and no meaning means less entertainment.  Perhaps we should be looking at something broader than mere "fun" from our gaming experiences?RC</blockquote>

Verification