Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9509356" data-attributes="member: 6785785"><a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/gms-do-you-get-bored-when-youre-a-player.707596/" target="_blank">DMs Bored as Players Thread</a>An interesting thread that points out how many DMs are bored when they play. I've taken two things away from that thread. First, D&D combat is boring for many people. Second, more relevantly, DMs tend to not enjoy playing because as players they have limited control over the game. But here's the thing... there's not another person imagining people into a bar in the real world. In a game, there is. So what we're actually talking about is not the real world. So let's set that aside. Why is it the case, in your opinion, that only the DM can determine who is in a restaurant? You don't think it's safe to assume that the average home brew world isn't as compelling as ones that have sparked multimedia behemoths? I think it's far fairer to the DM to assume their world is going to be moderately interesting. I'd also say it's likely fairer to them to expect the setting itself to be the less important part of running the game when compared to creating interesting situations for the PCs. The issue is that in the real world, when you look around the room, you see what you see. You don't need anyone else to tell you what you see. So for some folks, when faced with mundane situations like this, it's far more immersive to simply state what's happening. Well, I think there's a difference between allowing the players to lead the game and letting them wander around aimlessly with nothing meaningful happening. As you say, [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] can answer himself, but I'm reasonably certain that he would frame the characters into some kind of conflict before too long. Where as [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] would happily watch them wander about town accomplishing nothing if that's what was happening. But it's the DM who's reacting, not the world. I get that you're trying to simulate some kind of causality here, but it boils down to the DM deciding what happens. That's no more the way the world works than the player deciding. So to look at the example offered, the player says their character is drunk and looking to start a fight. As GM, I'd ask them with who? I'd let the player describe the person because why not? So he says "I pick the richest looking guy here". Then we see what happens as a result. Based on just that basic description, I can imagine some potential consequences. This allows the player to have some say about how things go. Turns out the rich guy is the duke's nephew... well, the player shouldn't be surprised. He had some say in that. This is the player and the GM collaborating more. Now, if people don't want to play a game that works this way, that's fine. But to say they can't even understand how it would work? I feel that says more about them than it does this type of game. Or to say that this kind of play is not functional? Or that a DM who allowed things to work this way is not worthwhile? Yeah... that's just BS.</blockquote>

Verification