Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8679322" data-attributes="member: 6790260">That they felt constrained does not mean they were constrained. And that &quot;popularity among players&quot; is exactly my point. There is a consequence to &quot;do whatever the heck you like, no matter what's written in the books available to players, without communicating with them or making sure everyone's on the same page.&quot; That's exactly what wanting to DM without consequences is: presuming that everyone will always just meekly accept what you choose to do without comment or criticism.The &quot;rise of RAW's popularity&quot; didn't weaken DM power. At all. You yourself just admitted that. What it did is make it so there were actual consequences for using certain kinds of DM techniques. And it turns out, when you've been used to doing whatever-the-heck-you-like, having actual consequences for your choices can be a rude awakening.Why does it have to be an argument? Why can't you just have a frank discussion, or say, &quot;I understand your criticisms, but I'd appreciate it if we can save that discussion for after the session, please.&quot;? It sounds to me like exactly what I was talking about above. You don't feel you actually need to get your players on board with what you're doing before you do it. You just do it, and expect them to follow like obedient little players. That's not a realistic thing to expect, especially as knowledge of the system becomes pervasive.Much better to give your players enough respect that you get them on the same page. At the very least, giving them a reason to expect that the common, shared understanding provided by the books is not actually common nor shared, and some kind of evidence that yes, the loss of this common, shared understanding will in fact be worthwhile.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8679322, member: 6790260"] That they felt constrained does not mean they [I]were[/I] constrained. And that "popularity among players" [I]is exactly my point[/I]. There is a [I]consequence[/I] to "do whatever the heck you like, no matter what's written in the books available to players, without communicating with them or making sure everyone's on the same page." That's exactly what wanting to DM without consequences is: presuming that everyone will always just meekly accept what you choose to do without comment or criticism. The "rise of RAW's popularity" didn't weaken DM power. At all. You yourself just admitted that. What it did is make it so there were actual consequences for using certain kinds of DM techniques. And it turns out, when you've been used to doing whatever-the-heck-you-like, having actual consequences for your choices can be a rude awakening. Why does it have to be an argument? Why can't you just have a frank discussion, or say, "I understand your criticisms, but I'd appreciate it if we can save that discussion for after the session, please."? It sounds to me like exactly what I was talking about above. You don't feel you actually need to get your players on board with what you're doing before you do it. You just do it, and expect them to follow like obedient little players. That's not a realistic thing to expect, especially as knowledge of the system becomes pervasive. Much better to give your players enough respect that you get them on the same page. At the very least, giving them a [I]reason[/I] to expect that the common, shared understanding provided by the books is not actually common nor shared, and [I]some kind[/I] of evidence that yes, the loss of this common, shared understanding will in fact be worthwhile. [/QUOTE]

Verification