Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 3657118" data-attributes="member: 48965">What tactic...it was an explicit question in an explicit situation that I was curious about, I think you're wanting to read more into it than is there.  We've already come to the conclusion that me and you see differently what the main gist of this article is.  I see one, maybe two paragraphs that actually state this...and no real advice or info on how to accomplish it, so I will just leave it at that.What outcry?  And yes, the game is about everyone's enjoyment.  I don't play games that I don't enjoy, simple as that.  I also would say that the DM does the lion's share of both designing the game, presenting it, and spending the most money on it( players only need a PHB right?).  What seems absurd to me is that I should disregard my playstyle of DM'ing because I happen to have players that aren't on board with it.  If anything some kind of compromise should be taking place, and that...in the end is what I'm arguing for.  Compromise takes place on both ends though, and I don't see the author once address the end on the part of his players.Of course not...it's WotC's site and they sell a product, why would they promote someone else's product over there own...even if it might fit the playstyle of his particular players better.  D&D is exactly what the DM makes it...so yes it can be a game that contains history, backstory, etc...as far as the "novel writing" come on...exaggerate much.  I'm sorry we'll just have to agree to disagree.  In my mind it is give and take...and like I cited earlier there are certain games and settings that the ability to be able to listen to info is necessary.  Even Eberron(when you're playing up it's mystery/noir aspects require this)...the funny thing is if I only tell you the relevant parts...it's not a mystery anymore, I might as well just layout a flowchart for you.IMHO it could be that this DM wants to run a specific type of game...and his players aren't on board for that.  This in my mind doesn't mean he should necessarily change his playstyle, it could mean he should change players.  Yet the article is very one sided in this area.  It takes the side that he, as DM, must be doing something wrong.  And there's just so many different ways of approaching the issue(which are hard without more info) that I think the article is more detrimental than helpful.  Uhm...once again how do you know it's relevant unless you listen?  The earlier "save my game" article shows that his players (except for one) generally do alot of table talk.  This could be chalked up to typical middle schooler behavior(especially when dealing with a peer who is trying to assert a level of control), and it's funny that at least one player isn't bored and actually takes an interest in what he's saying to them.  Maybe he just needs three more like that player instead of the others.Assume much?  And once again, not all of them did.  Do you feel it's right, even if it's just one player, for the other players to infringe on his fun as well because they don't find it interesting?  Are the other three players now more entitled to their fun than the DM and this player? Are you arguing that the powers of an item are the only relevant thing?  Or that these players somehow new ahead of time what was relevant?  I honestly get the impression that the DM wants the players to be more pro-active in exploring his world...is this a good or bad thing?  It all depends on the people you play with.  At least one player finds it interesting, so it can't be all bad.</blockquote>

Verification