Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5709131" data-attributes="member: 42582">Maybe I missed something in Bullgrit's post, but where is the evidence he did something that the group did not agree was acceptable?It's not enough to say that everyone agreed to play D&D, and hence any departure from the rules of D&D is a breach of the social contract. On the assumption that the new players don't actually know what the rules of D&D are, then those rules don't form part of the social contract, and aren't something that they have agreed to. Nor are they something that they have dissented from. Presumably they have no view.I would imagine that what new players do understand themselves to have agreed to is the the game will involve them playing protagonists in a fantasy world of violent conflict. And Bullgrit seems to have delivered this - subject to more clarification on the fudging (which seems to me to have involved scenario design elements rather than action resolution elements), I don't see any deprotagonisation.I mean, what evidence is there that by making up details of encounters or dungeon layout on the fly - in effect, by creating the scenario ex tempore in response to the choices of the players - Bullgrit was doing something which the players did not regard as acceptable?</blockquote>