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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8164696" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I know you are talking about "most players" but I think you are missing the practical points here for favor of seeing what you want to see. I, as a person who usually DMs, am also a player, and I know the rules. Therefore, if a rule question comes up, I generally know it. I don't need the DM to tell me, and in fact, I sometimes (since I play with some newer DMs at times) know the answer when they don't. In fact, there is always going to be a "most experienced player" who has the best grasp of the rules, right? But why are they required to be the DM? In fact, as someone said earlier, isn't it a laudable goal to have every player well-versed in the rules? Sure, some people are going to not care enough, but there is also a reason behind that. They are told they don't need to care. The DM will handle it. Which just increases the burden on the DM, who needs to constantly keep track of the player's abilities and how they work in addition to everything else, because the players don't need to learn the rules themselves. Something that we would all agree, is not an ideal situation.Advocating for your character is not the same as trying to run like the Flash and create a tornado. Or being a person who is so scary people are scared by your very existence (and you happen to be a 7 ft tall albino elf). Or the gods having you on speed dial to guide you to exactly where artifacts and quest objectives are. And those were the examples that we have been given repeatedly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I've seen a lot of that as well.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Which, like I've said, I get that. I mostly am objecting to the idea put forth that it can never work and that it always creates an inferior game regardless of the people involved.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Didn't ask for individual answers. You said it was impossible to have a game without a DM because the DM needs to run the monsters. I said it was possible for the players to run the monsters, and that groups have done so. You replied that you wouldn't like playing that way. Well, you might not like cricket, but that doesn't make it impossible to play old boy.So, it is hers, because she has put in all the effort to make it happen... and when she sits down with no players the game doesn't happen. And during the game, the players are driving the action, but the game in no way whatsoever belongs to them, even though it would be impossible without them and they are shaping the directions it goes in? That doesn't make sense.Again, you judgements of how much you might enjoy it in no way make it impossible. I hate banana taffy, I find it disgusting. That does not make Banana Taffy impossible to make or sell. The point was made that it is impossible to play DnD without a DM. It is not. People can and have played that way. Just because you wouldn't like it, doesn't mean it is not possible, or that someone else might not like it.So, you have already determined the only possible places a paladin could be made, and the possible cultures they could come from. Usually decisions like that are the player's to make. Since the player is in control of their characterWhat part of that prevents a reasonable discussion and clarification of the rules, perhaps by another player who is highly knowledgeable in the rules? Why must the DM be the one to sort of rules confusion? Here's a question, I know you are a fairly old player, probably considered a veteran. Have you ever sat at a table with a new player, and helped correct them when they make a rules mistake? Even if you were a fellow player and not the DM? Because that is literally the types of conversations I'm talking about that I keep getting told only the DM can have, and only if they have "Final Authority"-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Would hard data like pointing to Oofta's post where he literally says he doesn't tolerate murderhobos help prove that a lot of tables don't tolerate murderhobos? I mean, that would make three of us. You, me, and Oofta. Or maybe, instead of me providing hard data, you could provide hard data showing that the majority of games do include murderhobos.I'm not sure why people keep telling me things are impossible just because the book is written with an assumption of one model. And yet here we are. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) "there are people that will bend rules to the breaking point" -> Bad Faith 2) "Or they just make stuff up that is not in the realm of reasonable ruling" -> Bad Faith3) "some rules are just vague and need a final ruling" -> Not bad faith, but doesn't answer the question of why a group can't come to a consensus about the ruling instead of needing one person to declare it. So, the only non-bad faith argument in that post was the one that could absolutely be solved by a group of people talking it out. And yet I can't seem to get away from Bad Faith player examples.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Because we tell players that being a DM is hard. They need to be the rules expert who knows all the answers. They need to be strong enough socially to lead the entire table. They need to craft worlds entirely unique to them. They need to schedule everything, provide the location, ect ect ect ect.Of course most players don't think they can do all that. Even the mild acknowledgement that they aren't rule experts disqualifies them from the perceived role of the DM. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If a player happens to be a DM, they tend to care about the game as whole. But those not blessed with the DM mantle tend to only look out for themselves. Again, your bias towards seeing DMs are somehow special is... really blatant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No. I am saying that reasonable people can come to an agreement. They do it all the time. Yes, occasionally they might disagree, but that does not lead to the sort of behavior Oofta keeps claiming. And in fact, Oofta seems to refuse to acknowledge that it is even possible for reasonable people to agree, because it allows comes back to the fact that they won't and therefore the DM needs to step in and decide for them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</blockquote>

Verification