NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6229553" data-attributes="member: 59082">[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I think we're slipping a bit here into territory I'd rather not venture into - endless nitpicking blow-by-blows, and all that jazz that just ends up in an impasse or, worse, accusations of Edition Thuggery. Rather than address each and every point and disagreement you make, let me re-frame our discussion a bit in the hopes of illuminating the underlying elements at work.I think we operate under a different paradigm of what a DM's role is with regards to D&D and, I imagine, this goes back a long way. I've always taken the approach that the DM is a combination of many roles: storyteller, referee, worldbuilder, scene-setter, moderator, conflict resolver, and yes, "overlord" of the game and campaign.In that sense, the DM's role is fundamentally different than the players, who play characters in the DM's campaign world. To use an analogy that you have made clear is not your preferred style of play, if D&D is akin to an interactive and open-ended fantasy movie, the DM is the film-maker and writer of all characters other than the PCs, whereas the players are the protagonists. The DM creates scenarios, plot hooks, and even story-lines for the PCs to interact with. They co-create the story and action of the game, but the whole affair is run (and often created) by the DM.Now obviously this isn't the only way to do it, nor is it necessarily the "best" way, but it works for me and is, I think, basically the traditional, default approach to D&D - across all editions. There might be slight variations among editions, but I think this is the most common paradigm.What you describe seems to involve a lot more player empowerment - that they are not as much characters within the DM's creation, and protagonists in the story, but co-creators of the game itself. That sounds like a lot of fun and I'd love to try it, but that's not how I've ever played D&D, whether as a DM or a player in many different campaigns and with many different games. Some DMs have had players create parts of the world, say the village they came from, or even the religion that they're part of, but its still within the DM's creation. The paradigm you describe is something that I can see employing in different RPGs, from Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth to Mythic to Reign. In fact, it could probably be employed in all, or least most, RPGs - but it is not something that I've ever experienced in a game of D&D.I've often wanted to co-create a world with a group of people and each of us take turns DMing. I haven't found the group of people to do it, whether because of time commitments, interest, or just plain creativity. In the group I've been a part of for a few years now I'm the lone "serious+" gamer, with everyone else being casual. Anyhow, the point being that this is another paradigm from the two I described above, and that I'm open to trying different approaches to D&D, even if I enjoy and usually fall back on the "traditional" one.One final note. As a DM, I always allow and encourage players to think outside of the box, to do whatever it is they want, and I've found that 99% of the time my players trust my judgment and sense of fairness. I would never make it "very, very difficult to play an inspirational battle captain" - that is a misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of what I was trying to express; I'm honestly not sure how you came up with that interpretation! My point was simply that players can doanything, even if it isn't on the character sheet or defined by the rules, even if it seems nearly impossible.You might think I'm more against 4e-style play than I actually am. As I've said a few times, I really enjoy 4e, but also feel that something is lacking, or has been lacking for me (and many others who express similar feelings). What this is is not so simple as to be easily narrowed down, but is a combination of factors, only some of which we've discussed in this thread. But I do want to (re-)emphasize that I don't even dislike AEDU in and of itself, I just feel that it has a kind of totalizing effect that obfuscates the approach to game play that page 42 seeks to address but is, in the end, de-emphasized. I want both: clear and definable resources, but also a free-wheeling, improvisational play style that isn't relegated to a single page in one book, but is firmly part of the game ethos. I want to imagine myself in the game world, and determine my action as the character that is there, and then pick a power or skill if I need to. Actually, all versions of D&D allow for this, but some emphasize different components more than others, and to varying degrees. I'll leave it there, instead of re-circling back around again as is my tendency!</blockquote>

Verification