Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Belen" data-source="post: 9508117" data-attributes="member: 1405">The main argument is what level of responsibility should a DM have and it is ill-defined. The new rule 0 does not really help. It does not really clarify.IMO, the DM is the engine that keeps D&amp;D and many TTRPGs running. This is a person that does an enormous amount of work to run games and campaigns for players to enjoy. There are good and bad DMs as there are good and bad players.Many in this thread have argued that the DM has virtually zero or very small responsibility. The argument seems that they are beholden to provide the experience players want or they are bad, tyrannical people. I do not see any that are saying that want total power to dictate everything, but there is a strong current that any restrictions or rulings made by the DM are because people want absolute power.Personally, if I run a game, I want to have run so I create a setting or series of world/region events that will keep me engaged and willing to do the extra work to be the DM.Many players just want to show up and have fun. They may want a particular concept, or class, or species and that may be ok; however, if I have a specific region that does not have a certain species and a player wants it, then they better be prepared to do the work.In my experience, many players will not be willing to take on additional responsibility. Why should the DM who has spent hours, days, weeks, months or years to build something have to take on additional responsibility?The new rule zero works well if the game is equally collaborative but does not account for the extra responsibility that a DM takes on so that players can have a good time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Belen, post: 9508117, member: 1405"] The main argument is what level of responsibility should a DM have and it is ill-defined. The new rule 0 does not really help. It does not really clarify. IMO, the DM is the engine that keeps D&D and many TTRPGs running. This is a person that does an enormous amount of work to run games and campaigns for players to enjoy. There are good and bad DMs as there are good and bad players. Many in this thread have argued that the DM has virtually zero or very small responsibility. The argument seems that they are beholden to provide the experience players want or they are bad, tyrannical people. I do not see any that are saying that want total power to dictate everything, but there is a strong current that any restrictions or rulings made by the DM are because people want absolute power. Personally, if I run a game, I want to have run so I create a setting or series of world/region events that will keep me engaged and willing to do the extra work to be the DM. Many players just want to show up and have fun. They may want a particular concept, or class, or species and that [I]may[B] [/B][/I]be ok; however, if I have a specific region that does not have a certain species and a player wants it, then they better be prepared to do the work. In my experience, many players will not be willing to take on additional responsibility. Why should the DM who has spent hours, days, weeks, months or years to build something have to take on additional responsibility? The new rule zero works well if the game is equally collaborative but does not account for the extra responsibility that a DM takes on so that players can have a good time. [/QUOTE]

Verification