Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 5986455" data-attributes="member: 6688858">It's like this. Those of us who don't mind the first exchange between player and DM disagree with your characterization of the DM's responses as meaning the same thing as &quot;yes, you may&quot;. It doesn't feel like that. It feels like my mental map of the battleground has a tangible, objective reality that I am consulting. I'm not just pulling an answer out of my butt. I am NOT making the decision based on whether the player &quot;deserves&quot; the answer they're looking for, as characterizing it as &quot;yes, you may&quot; implies. I am following facts previously established about the gameworld. If I do get the &quot;I'm pulling this out of my butt&quot; feeling, and the stakes are significant, then I roll dice to decide. I feel that I am making the judgement fairly, and I endeavor to make sure that the players feel that way too.The DM is in the best position to be combat referee for two reasons: one, they don't have a character so they don't have a conflict of interest; and two, their judgement ought to be the most accurate and consistent because it's their job in general to build, maintain and describe the setting. To me this sort of combat refereeing follows straightforwardly out of that. It's not out of step with the general role of the DM at all.No, not really. You can ask the DM to make these judgements, and thus set the facts about the gameworld in stone, as early and often in your tactical decision-making process as you want.I enjoy being active in the &quot;referee&quot; role. I find it makes the mental &quot;movie&quot; of what's going on more vivid for me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Libramarian, post: 5986455, member: 6688858"] It's like this. Those of us who don't mind the first exchange between player and DM disagree with your characterization of the DM's responses as meaning the same thing as "yes, you may". It doesn't [I]feel[/I] like that. It feels like my mental map of the battleground has a tangible, objective reality that I am consulting. I'm not just pulling an answer out of my butt. I am NOT making the decision based on whether the player "deserves" the answer they're looking for, as characterizing it as "yes, you may" implies. I am following facts previously established about the gameworld. If I do get the "I'm pulling this out of my butt" feeling, and the stakes are significant, then I roll dice to decide. I feel that I am making the judgement fairly, and I endeavor to make sure that the players feel that way too. The DM is in the best position to be combat referee for two reasons: one, they don't have a character so they don't have a conflict of interest; and two, their judgement ought to be the most accurate and consistent because it's their job in general to build, maintain and describe the setting. To me this sort of combat refereeing follows straightforwardly out of that. It's not out of step with the general role of the DM at all. No, not really. You can ask the DM to make these judgements, and thus set the facts about the gameworld in stone, as early and often in your tactical decision-making process as you want. I enjoy being active in the "referee" role. I find it makes the mental "movie" of what's going on more vivid for me. [/QUOTE]

Verification