Gold Roger
First Post
Hjorimir said:I didn't say all players needed their hand held. But a DM should be able to step in and say no when needed.
Agreed, but it should be less law enforcement and more just the "leader" steping in and explaining why that idea won't work.
Hjorimir said:Because I don't run campaigns in a vacuum. Any homebrew I create has some kind of logical consistency and I don't make the players privy to the secrets of the world as that is part of the fun of exploring a setting.
I actually don't run in a cacuum either. I only start it in one and fill in all that void the players left after making their character. Believe me there's still plenty of homebrewing, campaign secrets and setting exploration.
Hjorimir said:I would say that the DM is in charge of the setting and that the players are in charge of their characters, which need to fit into the setting.
You actually state the problem here. The PC's are part of the setting. And if the DM is in absolute charge of the setting the players can't be really in charge of the PC's.
Hjorimir said:Okay, you've said it. But I've been successfully running campaigns for over twenty years and have had to beat my players back with a stick at times because I just don't want to run another fifteen person game.
Oh, I don't mean that a game run another way can't be successful. I've run successful games your way as well (though not for such a long time). I just think it's even better if the players are more involved.
Hjorimir said:If I want to run a Middle Earth game I will announce it. The players who are interested in playing that will say they want to play. It seems pretty simple to me.
Which is what I was saying later.
Hjorimir said:I don't seek players; I call friends who happen to play role-playing games. I never ask for the "ok" to run any kind of game. Call it a luxury, call it arrogance, but they like whatever I run.
Then it's still more or less gaming "by commitee", just that the players altogether decided to just trust your choices. It can work if all people in the group want the same from the game. I just don't think it's a good default.
Besides, I play with friends who happen to play RPG's as well. Which is why it's so important to accomodate them. If I was playing with random people I'd just "hire and fire" people until I've got a group that does exactly what I want. But since I play with a rather consistent group of friends (and I prefer that to random people-though I have some formerly "random" players that are now good friends) with diversified taste, I want to work with them to maximise the fun we have together.
Hjorimir said:I'd tell Bob if he is so interested in that to start up a game and see who else might be interested.
Works to.
I have to wonder though, it doesn't sound like you have any Bob in your game, so why would you advocate restricting the bobs of the world?
Hjorimir said:Obviously, I'm not a fan of rule by committee, which I consider to be the most ineffective form of rule.
The merits of rule by commitee can be discussed (though not here, since it ventures into the realm of politics), but my point is that in a small group with only friends, there shouldn't be any rule needed. I mean, have you ever tried it on the small friendly scale of a gaming group, especially one that seems as homogenous as yours.
fusangite said:When I join a game, I join a game to experience a coherent story and setting fashioned by my GM. I do not show up to design a setting by committee. If you want to game in RPGs where the GM is just one voice among many designing the physical laws and cultures of his world, go buy Sorceror or Burning Wheel.
I don't want to remove the DM. The DM still runs the sessions, advocates the rules, designs most of the world and creates coherent plots and adventures. I just don't think that it should be hard to acommodate the players wishes, expectations and ideas doing so. The idea that that is impossible in D&D strikes me as odd.
fusangite said:If I want to design a setting, I'll be the GM. If I'm showing up with a character sheet, that means I'm here to play a setting, a setting based on an internal logic more powerful and coherent than what PrC some munchkin has just found in the latest piece of overpriced WOTC swag.
Munchkinism doesn't anywhere play into may theory. Munchkins, as I define them, are egoistic jerks that don't want to acommodate the wishes of the DM and other players and need not to show their face at my gaming table. And if a DM doesn't own a certain gaming book I also see no need for him to allow something from that book.
But, the idea that a setting can't be coherent unless completely reglemented doesn't seem sound to me. How does the fact that there's the island nation Chon-Tsan, whose Jooun Mystics have developed some advanced paths of wizardry (some arcane PrC's) change the overall coherence of the setting?