Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jrowland" data-source="post: 6320917" data-attributes="member: 94389">What seems to be missing here is the fact that a highly codified game, one that is empirical with objective truths allows for Bad DMS. Bad DMs do not LEARN what works well for a great table experience for the people they have played around. They do not become good DMs as the rules do all the work for them. That is compensating for the flaws in the DM.See what I did there?It comes down to a difference of opinion, really. I want more good DMs. IMHO, I think the game needs more good DMs to grow and be successful. I don't see how overly codified rule sets create more good DMs. You could argue that to master the rule set as a DM you have to be Good, but that seems more a barrier to entry. I think the 5E is doing the right thing. Yes, there will be MORE bad DMs, but the rule set is flexible, forgiving, and those DMs will get better. They must, or they simply won't be DMs anymore when nobody shows up for their game. The difference in opinion is where you put the onus: On the DM (improve your game to maximize your table-fun) or the developers (improve the game to maximize every table-fun). I think Monte Cooks comment goes to the the heart of it: Developers just aren't interested in creating the mythical one-game-to-rule-them-all where everyone is satisfied. Here's the bare bones, here are some options we think are popular, here are some guidelines to tweak the game to suit certain popular playstyles. Have Fun! That seems a great approach.So count me on the side of the flexible, less rules is more side of the opinion. ie "human-centric"IMO</blockquote>

Verification