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="epithet" data-source="post: 7762415" data-attributes="member: 6796566">The quotes you provide certainly support the position that the DM is responsible for interpreting and implementing the rules, and even willfully breaking them when the situation calls for it. I'm absolutely in favor of all of that, absolutely and without reservation. My point is that there should be consensus as to what the rules are in the first place. My position is that the group, collectively, should decide what game is being played. Then, of course, it is the DM's role to run it, including interpreting the rules and making rulings as to how things work.Regarding "variant" rules, I don't see that as a meaningful distinction. When you have a set of rules published with variations and options, you chose the ruleset that will comprise your game. It is no different than choosing to run a "basic game by the pdf" or "sticking to the PHB." Those are choices, just as using the "Playing on a Grid" rules are. This really is the point I'm trying to make, perhaps inartfully: D&D according the the 5e Basic pdf is in many ways a different game than D&D according to the PHB and DMG, especially if you use some of the more divergent variations like Sanity or Honor. When you get a group of people together to play a game, that group of people should reach a consensus about the game that is going to be played. It might be that, in your situation, "whatever game ol' Mist wants to run for the rest of us," and that's fine. I think your player buy-in will be greater, though, if you invite the players to participate in deciding which of the variations and options in 5e D&D your game will include.Once dice are rolling and the game is being played, we're pretty much all tyrants. There are certainly some variant rules in the DMG for running the game by committee, but I've never played in a group that had any interest in that style, and it doesn't appeal to me in the least. Tyranny is an essential part of the role of the Dungeon Master, in my opinion. Someone has to be the final word, the ultimate arbiter, and the wielder of the stopped buck. Before that point, though... before you play the game, I think it works better if you don't have one member of the group tell everyone else what they're going to be playing.I suppose, in fairness, I should qualify my assertions. Each member of my primary group has been playing tabletop RPGs for decades, across many editions and systems. We've been playing together for more years than I can quickly remember. If I were to run a game for a bunch of new-to-the-game folks, or for a bunch of strangers, my attitude might be tempered. With all that said, though, if someone came to me saying "hey, I saw this on a live stream and I want to try it, it seems like fun" I would absolutely try to make it work rather than saying "no, furries are silly and you can't play that." It may be my world, my story, my monsters, and my treasure... but it's our game, players included.</blockquote>

Verification