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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8926750" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Whoever said it was? Legitimately. When did anyone ever say anything like that?No definition of "absolute authority" I've ever heard makes sense in that context. That's like saying the Senate has absolute authority, they just choose to abide by the results of the states' elections for who gets to be in the body.Then you'd want to play a Wizard or Cleric, or playbooks like them (such as the Shaman playbook one of my players found), which have much more D&D-like spells. The Bard player chose to play Bard in part because of the improvisational nature of its magic. (Arcane Art lists several well-defined things you can seek; the player and I have developed further uses.)See, here we have a major argument disguised as something else. You're asserting that this is what D&D fundamentally is--an absolute autocratic dictatorship of the DM. It isn't. That's one way it can be expressed, but it is NOT the only way. Telling me that I have to dislike D&D if I dislike the absolute autocratic dictatorship of the DM is circular reasoning, presuming the very thing in contention.I would ask why they want to do that. Is it to achieve flight? There are several ways to achieve flight. Is it because they want to build a machine? There are other kinds of machine that would make more sense. Is it because they think jet engines are cool? I can understand that, but I don't really share their enthusiasm per se. Is it military power? There are other methods to achieving military power (which may include magical or, indeed, artifice-derived forms of aerial superiority.) I want to know what the goal of making this fighter jet is, because we can almost certainly make that happen.I'm sure you can bring up innumerable other examples, but it's pretty clear you cherry-picked here. You know that the kind of thing I'm talking about is stuff like dragonborn (naturally, I'm a fan), monks, genies, feathered serpents, berbalangs, flintlock pistols, etc. Stuff that is perfectly reasonable for fantasy--even for medieval fantasy--but which doesn't have the gaming pedigree of dwarves or the roots in Tolkien or the myth and folklore of English, German, or Greco-Roman cultures.And I'm saying it is always possible for both sides to adjust and adapt. That doing so encourages players both to be more amenable to compromise themselves (both because they will know that compromise is likely to get them some of what they want, and because they know the DM is meeting them partway and thus it behooves them to respond in  kind), and to enthusiastically embrace the game and its themes. I beat on my "player enthusiasm" drum pretty hard, but I have yet to hear an argument for why it shouldn't be a top priority of every DM everywhere.I...don't understand how it requires any "abstract" thinking. E.g. with Dungeon World--is a player closely studying a situation or person? That's Discern Realities (in D&D terms, "a Perception check.") Is a player attempting to take aim and shoot at an enemy at range? That's Volley. Is a player attempting to act despite imminent threat, or suffering a calamity? That's Defy Danger.These things cover a broad swathe of situations, but they are rooted in clear, concrete actions. That's how DW moves work. There is no abstract thinking required; in the vast majority of cases, anyone merely paying attention to the situation will agree that the kind of action so described is occurring.</blockquote>

Verification