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="Balesir" data-source="post: 6229652" data-attributes="member: 27160">I think the difference may be rather smaller than you imagine. Of that list, the only one I would definitely exclude is "storyteller". As GM I don't know what the story will be, nor do I want to. It will emerge from play. "Worldbuilder" may also be a bit dubious for D&D (specifically). I "build" sufficient of a "world" for play to proceed, but no more; the rest is mutable to suit all the players' requirements (including mine). The rest - referee (of the rules as written), scene-setter and so on are all fine. "Overlord" is a bit overblown, but the GM's role is certainly wider than the other players'.If the player characters are protagonists, they must have agency - i.e. they must have power to act without veto. Otherwise they are not really protagonists, they are just puppets.The GM creates scenarios, yes, and plot hooks and necessary background - but not the storyline. The story is formed from a synthesis of the GM's framed situation and the actions of the protagonists; without the latter it does not exist - cannot exist.They are co-creators of the story, which to an extent you might call "the game itself", but in D&D they are not usually the co-creators of the world outside their characters. The actions of their characters might change the world, for sure - that is the very essence of being a protagonist! But the players don't generally decide the system or setting detail as such.As an addendum, I lost the quote, but you said you were the lone serious gamer while your players were "casual". I think this might partly explain why you feel that 4E powers "stifle creativity". I said above that, once the players get to know both the rules and their characters they tend to use their powers as resources rather than a checklist of "what to do". If your players don't/can't learn the basics of the rules thoroughly, then I'm guessing that a really rules light system would suit them better. Rules in any game really only work well if the players all know what they are.In well designed rules there will be no clash because the places where each player (including the GM) has the power to dictate will be defined. This is one area where a lot of Indie games are really good, actually; their split of responsibility/power may be very non-traditional, but it is well defined. The rules say - as their primary function, in fact - who gets to decide what.The idea that the GM "has greater knowledge of where things are going in general" is somewhat alien to me. Greater knowledge of the monster/NPC/setting details? Sure. Greater knowledge of where the story is heading? Nope.Assuming that the GM is constrained by the rules, yes - some seem to be saying that rules do not constrain a GM, however...Background, yes. History, yes - as far as is required for play. Story board or predetermined plot - no. To have such a thing is, at a minimum, to limit the influence of the players' decisions and thus to render their characters other than protagonists - which is what they are supposed to be.Now, there might be exceptions to this with the agreement and connivance of the players - when running through a sequence of published scenarios, for example - but in general no future plot should be assumed or planned by the GM. The players should make clear their intentions, and the GM should plan around that.That may be true (I don't remember ever experiencing it), but it would be an occasion for communication with the players, not for unilaterally strong-arming things into a direction I liked.</blockquote>

Verification