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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5169177" data-attributes="member: 18280">I was wondering how long this would take to come up.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />You are, of course, correct.  IMHO at least.  It is unethical for the DM to allow the game to be destroyed, if the DM can prevent the destruction of the game.Depending upon what that something is that will destroy the game (and sometimes it is saying Yes to the players, or putting the players' immediate "fun" over the longterm good of the game), the ethical DM will have to make a valuation as to what is the best course of action.  Sometimes, this means choosing the lesser of two evils.  Sometimes, you are going to harm your game to some degree, and the only choice is which will do the least harm.An easy example, that has nothing to do with fudging, is dealing with a problem player.  You have to do something, or the game will be hurt.  But doing something will also hurt the game.  The ethical DM attempts to minimize the harm regardless of what he chooses.  Depending upon the particular strengths and weaknesses of the DM and player involved, this might be an attempt at reform, the boot, anything in between, or something completely different.The truly great DM (a standing to which no one attains at all times) can head the problem off at the pass, and fix it before it becomes critical.It is a general truism that it is better to fix the problem before it has become critical; addressing a potential problem before it has become a problem is always superior to addressing a potential problem after it has fully manifested.There may be an exception to that general truism; if there is, I cannot think of one right now.RC</blockquote>

Verification