Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8679989" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I don't really think the consequences have changed. I think the rate at which consequences occur, and the vehemence and volume of those consequences, has changed. That is, players are better-informed, better equipped to identify DM behaviors (good, bad, or indifferent), and less willing to tolerate undesirable or uncomfortable practices. Some of this comes from the higher system transparency (even in 5e, despite the fact that it goes out of its way to be opaque at times.) Some of it comes from the Internet enabling far greater discussion and analysis and outside ideas: when all you know is the one game run by your friend who is your age, and you don't know anyone else who plays outside your friend group, you have no standard of comparison, but now we have legions of people to talk to and examples to compare against (for better and for worse.) Some of it, I'm sure, is a culture difference between the players of the 2010s and 2020s and the players of the 1970s and 1980s. As with any social phenomenon, there are a host of reasons. But the ultimate fact is, the consequences for less-appreciated techniques in DMing come a lot faster and, usually, a lot more vocally than they did in ye olden dayse. I find DMs mistake "players actually criticize DM techniques and don't meekly accept ones they dislike" for "players are entitled jerks who refuse to let me show them the grand masterpiece they COULD have had if they weren't UNGRATEFUL DONKEYS."I assume my phrasing makes it quite clear which position I think is the more reasonable one.</blockquote>

Verification