Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kwalish Kid" data-source="post: 3987959" data-attributes="member: 446">This is the aspect of the problem of DM fiat that I discussed in the original post. Sure, everything in the rules is a guideline for the DM. However, DMs run the risk of player revolt if they do too much change against the expectations of the other players. These expectations will be formulated in part based on the communication between players before the game, on the rules as written, and by communication between the players and players in other groups.In some ways, the D&amp;D table is a perfect example of Hobbes' state. There is no game unless the players as a group submit much of the control of the game to the will of one player. That one player can do pretty much what he or she wants, up to a point. The DM can make no game, or any other game, better than the current game, so the players as a group leave the game.There is, of course, incentive to cheat such a system as there is in almost every system. The question is what do players cheat in order to obtain? This is a good measure of the real desires of these players. I think that action points (and second wind) address the things that players cheat to obtain most of the time that they cheat. This helps make the overall system, as written, best meet player desires, even though those desires as the game is played may differ from those (stated) desires before the game is played. (I'm not saying that players who cheat set out to cheat. They intend to play the game as written, but circumstances change or override that desire during play. Or, as Fine nods towards, the concept of cheating is done but never acknowledged; few people at the table truly mind some forms of cheating so it's already a tacit rule.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kwalish Kid, post: 3987959, member: 446"] This is the aspect of the problem of DM fiat that I discussed in the original post. Sure, [i]everything[/i] in the rules is a guideline for the DM. However, DMs run the risk of player revolt if they do too much change against the expectations of the other players. These expectations will be formulated in part based on the communication between players before the game, on the rules as written, and by communication between the players and players in other groups. In some ways, the D&D table is a perfect example of Hobbes' state. There is no game unless the players as a group submit much of the control of the game to the will of one player. That one player can do pretty much what he or she wants, up to a point. The DM can make no game, or any other game, better than the current game, so the players as a group leave the game. There is, of course, incentive to cheat such a system as there is in almost every system. The question is what do players cheat in order to obtain? This is a good measure of the real desires of these players. I think that action points (and second wind) address the things that players cheat to obtain most of the time that they cheat. This helps make the overall system, as written, best meet player desires, even though those desires as the game is played may differ from those (stated) desires before the game is played. (I'm not saying that players who cheat set out to cheat. They intend to play the game as written, but circumstances change or override that desire during play. Or, as Fine nods towards, the concept of cheating is done but never acknowledged; few people at the table truly mind some forms of cheating so it's already a tacit rule.) [/QUOTE]

Verification