Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bloodtide" data-source="post: 9471723" data-attributes="member: 6684958">Ok, but this is not the example you gave.&nbsp; You example was: DM sits there, player tells them what to make and the DM makes what the player wants.&nbsp; If there are also like a dozen other things going on, why don't you list them?&nbsp; And how exactly is the world made by everyone?&nbsp; I'd guess your not talking about the players writing down pages of fluff and rules crunch.&nbsp; And I'd guess your not talking about when you would stop playing the game and just have everyone create stuff for an hour or so.Again, you did not mention this.&nbsp; The word final sounded very final.And again, your adding to what you first said.&nbsp; So again, why did not not say the above the first time?What is the point of an example if it has like a dozen secrets you don't mention that are critical to understanding it?I really don't get this putting the player(s) up on such a high pedestal.&nbsp; Sure they said a couple things, but then the DM did everything else.&nbsp; But sure, give the player(s) 51% of the credit.&nbsp; It's like talking to a person for five minutes, then spending six months to write a novel and then giving that person half the credit.Again, your counting nearly anything as the players doing a ton.&nbsp; A player says a couple of words and tells the DM to make something.&nbsp; The DM says ''ok player&quot; and does and gives the player half the credit.&nbsp; I've peeked a time or two, but the &quot;free rules&quot; don't seem to align with what anyone ever says.&nbsp; So...just to use your example for an example.&nbsp; It says &quot;within situations presented by the GM&quot;.&nbsp; It does NOT say &quot;in situations jointly made by all participants in the game together collaboratively&quot; or anything like that.&nbsp; Ok, so player makes &quot;priorities&quot; and DM says 'yes player' and &quot;frames the priorities&quot;.&nbsp; So...I would note this example has the DM only doing what the players tell them to do.....unless you just 'forgot' to add more to the above.I guess I'm missing the collaboration?&nbsp; The player says &quot;do this&quot; and the DM &quot;does that&quot;....is not even close to collaboration.&nbsp; And the DM just sit there when ever a player makes a roll with a shrug and &quot;well the rules say you win&quot;, but when the player fails a roll&nbsp; rules let the DM they can add in a little something bad.I get the &quot;theoretical&quot; here that if the player rolls high and DM just hangs their head down and says &quot;yes player....again&quot;.&nbsp; The rules say so, and the players can point to Page 11 and say &quot;haha, you can't do anything DM!&quot;&nbsp; And the DM can only do a bit, only when the players roll bad and the rules let them.Well, I'm not a fan of the way &quot;collaboration&quot; is presented here: The player tells the DM what to do and the DM says &quot;yes player&quot;.&nbsp; To me a game where some people just boss one person around does not sound like fun at all.It depends on the game play style.&nbsp; I'm not a fan of the &quot;quantum gaming&quot; where any detail can change on a whim.&nbsp; Where whatever the players randomly do is the &quot;right thing&quot; to move the game forward.&nbsp; No matter what goal the PCs have they will just auto do it, as anything they do furthers the goal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bloodtide, post: 9471723, member: 6684958"] Ok, but this is not the example you gave. You example was: DM sits there, player tells them what to make and the DM makes what the player wants. If there are also like a dozen other things going on, why don't you list them? And how exactly is the world made by everyone? I'd guess your not talking about the players writing down pages of fluff and rules crunch. And I'd guess your not talking about when you would stop playing the game and just have everyone create stuff for an hour or so. Again, you did not mention this. The word final sounded very final. And again, your adding to what you first said. So again, why did not not say the above the first time? What is the point of an example if it has like a dozen secrets you don't mention that are critical to understanding it? I really don't get this putting the player(s) up on such a high pedestal. Sure they said a couple things, but then the DM did everything else. But sure, give the player(s) 51% of the credit. It's like talking to a person for five minutes, then spending six months to write a novel and then giving that person half the credit. Again, your counting nearly anything as the players doing a ton. A player says a couple of words and tells the DM to make something. The DM says ''ok player" and does and gives the player half the credit. I've peeked a time or two, but the "free rules" don't seem to align with what anyone ever says. So...just to use your example for an example. It says "within situations presented by the GM". It does NOT say "in situations jointly made by all participants in the game together collaboratively" or anything like that. Ok, so player makes "priorities" and DM says 'yes player' and "frames the priorities". So...I would note this example has the DM only doing what the players tell them to do.....unless you just 'forgot' to add more to the above. I guess I'm missing the collaboration? The player says "do this" and the DM "does that"....is not even close to collaboration. And the DM just sit there when ever a player makes a roll with a shrug and "well the rules say you win", but when the player fails a roll rules let the DM they can add in a little something bad. I get the "theoretical" here that if the player rolls high and DM just hangs their head down and says "yes player....again". The rules say so, and the players can point to Page 11 and say "haha, you can't do anything DM!" And the DM can only do a bit, only when the players roll bad and the rules let them. Well, I'm not a fan of the way "collaboration" is presented here: The player tells the DM what to do and the DM says "yes player". To me a game where some people just boss one person around does not sound like fun at all. It depends on the game play style. I'm not a fan of the "quantum gaming" where any detail can change on a whim. Where whatever the players randomly do is the "right thing" to move the game forward. No matter what goal the PCs have they will just auto do it, as anything they do furthers the goal. [/QUOTE]

Verification