NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9506827" data-attributes="member: 71699">The theory advanced seems to be, from the perspective of a given DM1. play will be unsuccessful unless they run it in the way they are good at 2. players don't impinge on play success as they can be swapped out for those that fit and from the perspective of a given player3. play will be unsuccessful unless DM runs it in the way they (the player) works well with 4. but DM doesn't impinge on play success as they can be swapped out for one that fits I feel like this theory rests on over-simplifications - play is successful or unsuccessful, and DM and players simply are the way they are. There's no room for increasing success with a new approach or growing skill. I'm not saying this is what [USER=6698278]@Emerikol[/USER] intends to argue, only that the words I quoted seem to contain those implications.So the first and most obvious challenge seems to me to wonder whether play couldn't become more successful in tandem with the DM becoming more skillful? This would then open the door to theories about what more successful play and more skillful DMing could look like? It would allow for play to be more successful because DM changed the way they run it. The theory advanced, if I have laid it out correctly, jams that door closed, because of its fixed premises (that play and DMing simply are as they are): it shuts down debate about what better DMing could look like.This observation is separate from a position on what better DMing looks like, and doesn't aim to ignore that preferences differ. Rather, I want to suggest that the more fruitful debate is one that allows for play success and DM skill to be fluid, capable of degrees of improvement, and can then get into observations and ideas about what will contribute to that (tied to each given set of preferences.)</blockquote>

Verification