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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9396128" data-attributes="member: 23751">I don't think so.  I just think it's not something that doesn't come up often.  Typically the threads are about the bad DM or bad DMing, not bad players.  And even when it is about bad players, the discussion is about the rare player that is a disruption, cheater, etc. and so doesn't focus on the players at the typical DM's table.  I think there is a silent majority here.I agree.  They are the default differences, though, which is why I said that.  Of course the DM/group can change how things are played and the roles are divided.I don't understand this.  The PCs don't/shouldn't have things that the DM is not aware of, so I don't see how it can go the other way.  At least in this regard.I agree.  Just like I default to trusting new players until they show me that they cheat or disrupt the game, the DM should be trusted until he shows that he cannot be.  Over time it will be apparent if a DM is untrustworthy.I think you are reading more into that statement than is there.  I'm talking about if in game the gameplay takes the group away from the situation and there is no in game opportunity to find out, not if the DM is hiding it so that they can't find out.I didn't say to never tell the reason.  I said they may not find out the reason, which is true.  Sometimes they have the desire and time to dig into what happened and sometimes they lack the desire and/or time.  Other times they may have the desire and time, but fail the rolls or to look in the right direction.  There's nothing nefarious about what I said.</blockquote>

Verification