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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 6503662" data-attributes="member: 20564">And trust between the players and DM.  Oh, and suspension of disbelief.  That giant should crush itself because of the square cube rule.And most importantly fun.  And what is fun varies from table to table.  There's no correct answer for this because there are really PLENTY of correct answers for this.Actually, I'm actively against adjudication impartiality because of it's implications.  Yes, there are a set of rules to follow, and they are the social contract that builds trust and is a foundation of the players allowing the DM the authority they have within the game.  But there is also a human DM who should be going beyond what can be codified in the rules.  Who can grant a character an out-of-initiative action to - at the risk of their own PC - leap off an cliff with a rope to catch the plummeting, unconscious PC.  That's not an allowed reaction by the rules so it's something that an impartial adjudicator won't allow.  Frankly, I wan an adjudicator who is not impartial, but rather actively interested in crafting a fun, engaging session.  Even if it takes going beyond what the rules cover.  Yes, the out-of-initiative action is not consistent because I wouldn't allow it every round - but allowing one player to selflessly risk their PC to save another is what gaming stories are made of.  This is a fantastic and perfectly valid style, one of many.  There's a rhetorical divide with "DM trust" and "DM whim" on opposite sides.  If you find DMs to be whimful and need to reign them in, go for it.  And I can see that DMs can be inconsistent and having an external yardstick to keep them on path can be useful.To me, a DM can design a killer encounter or no-win situation easily within the rules if they want to.  If you already trust your DM not to do that, I'm not sure why there are lack of trust during a game for smaller matters.This had me blinking in confusion.  In the earlier quotes I see stylistic differences between us, and I can see how yours can make sense for your table even if they wouldn't fit mine.  Here I see something I can't comprehend.  Every person at the table has a preference that matters.  If they are out of sync people will not be happy or will get less enjoyment from a game.  It's good to set expectations before starting a campaign to make sure everyone is on the same page.Now, if you are saying that you shouldn't railroad, yeah I agree.  But again, unless your preferences are out-of-whack with your players then there will be a problem.  They want a light hearted silly game to blow off steam and you want gritty political shades of grey, and that's not hammered out there's a definite problem.  Even if you just submerse your preferences will you still be having as much fun?  GM's fun is as important - no more, no less - than anyone else's sitting around the table.And if you are on the same page as them, your preferences will make them have more fun because what you do is what they want.The DM isn't a robot; I could play a computer game for that.  DMs are what breathes life into a tabletop game.  If the DM lets that go to their head and becomes a tin crown dictator, that's a problem.  And burns away DM trust.*boggle*A DM who tried to run roughshod of the players like that will likely cause the players to fall back on their ultimate point of control - not playing under that DM.A DM has absolutely NO authority not granted by the players.  Not a whit.  Not by the rules, not by anything.  And the players can ALWAYS take that authority back.  They may also have finer degrees of control, like communication with the DM, but they can always exercise that final option.The DM only gets to use that authority as long as they are providing a fun game for the players.  What you describe is self correcting.  I've walked away from campaigns, but in more cases I've talked to DMs or groups.  And in even more cases I've sat and had fun, on both sides of the screen.Well written.  I agree with you on one major point of this: if you hand players things on a silver plate it's not an accomplishment.  For meaningful reward, there needs to be meaningful risk.  AND conscious assumption of that risk in order to achieve the reward.  Plot protection of the PCs leads to a boring game.But I disagree that I can't want the characters to be heroes.  I'm the one creating a setting, and I need to put in risks and opportunities.  Players will come up with more things to do then I can ever envision beforehand, but I need to lay opportunities.  They will make more that I haven't thought of, and I have to take what they did and run with it.And at my table, that includes evaluating what they want to do in ways with an eye towards telling a great story following their leads.  To take a bit from a campaign I had previously run, one PC's self-imposed task of reuniting warring lands wasn't particularly realistic in terms of geopolitics, but as the other PCs fell around him to make it happen my mandate as DM isn't to crush it, it was to follow their lead and craft together a enjoyable game about the trials and tribulations they had to go through towards trying it.BTW, thank you.  This is a great conversation about gaming philosophy, all kicked off about falling speed.  Who would have predicted that?  Should we open a new thread?</blockquote>

Verification