Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Abused as a kid, he's a sociopath, and other similar things. There's nothing you can do with D&D rules.You just keep repeating yourself, with no explanation of why I am wrong except that the worst of the worst will never change. I'm not talking about the worst of the worst. I'm not talking about the guy who gleefully giggles as he shreds your character sheet in front of you. You're right, that guy will never change. But how did he get that way and can we do anything to change that path and stop him from getting to that point?
Wow. You just took a very large leap with no information again. We've not discussed how society and family fail these people. We've only been discussing D&D rules, which aren't going to stop them.You seem to take the approach that that individual is just fundamentally broken and nothing caused it. I disagree.
This is the best argument you've put forward so far. However, I'm not yet convinced by it. I agree that it is more likely that they would all leave at once, but I'm not sure how much more likely it would be and if that increase is worth the damage to the tool for the vast majority of DMs who do not abuse their authority.And I think your response to the idea of setting up a vote for a homebrew rule really highlights the issue that you are ignoring. You see, if the DM ignores the vote and does it anyways... the game doesn't continue. It is the same effect practically, the game ends and the players move on, but there is a difference. Because it is more likely that ALL the players leave, at once. Because the players have exercised their right to have their voices heard, and the DM ignored them. It became very stark. Whereas in the current set-up, many people would argue that the player's don't have the right to question the DM, to question their rulings. So each individual player has to decide when the flags have been raised and it is time to bail, which potentially they won't, because they may have another player they don't want to abandon to a bad DM.
It's not that simple, though. You(general you) have to weigh whether the damage you are doing to the tool is outweighed by the few(relatively) groups that would have increased benefit from the change.Again, just like I have a dozen times. I'm not naive enough to think that changes will remove all abuses from all games for all time. But they can put us in a place that is better than we are, and maybe prevent future abuses by not setting up a power dynamic that is fundamentally untenable. No one actually exercises the full authority of the DM, because we don't need it. We don't need unlimited power to run the game. So why do we have it? You have never once made an argument that the ultimate power of the DM is a good thing, you have only claimed it is a thing. And I think it is because you realize that all of the good a DM can do is in a very small portion of that power.
Not possibly. It happened.Possibly, but I also have never once heard people in those systems praise the Storyteller or the GM position as one of unfettered power with the ability to do anything. That seems uniquely DnD. And I question why, because it doesn't actually serve a purpose.
You are also wrong with the declaration that it doesn't serve a purpose. The unfettered fiat ability has the purpose of allowing the DM the freedom to really make the game better for his group. To tailor it to their needs and to ditch portions of the game rules that interfere with the group's enjoyment of the game.
Many are the times where a game rule that was usually a good one, suddenly didn't make sense in an unusual situation and I had to toss it on the fly and come up with something of my own. To have to stop the action in order to discuss the situation, proposed a new rule, receive counter proposals, and then vote on a replacement would destroy the session. It's much better for the DM to just have the authority to just make a ruling and quickly move on with the fun.
Sure. I've never disputed that there aren't other ways to game, or that those games don't work for certain people. I don't think I'd enjoy that kind of game as a player, though, at least not for longer than a one shot to try it out.I have actually played and own games where the idea of changing the characters mid-scene is seen as horrible. Where the role is "Chief Editor" (it is a comic book conceit) and the expectation is very much that by the time the players are in the scene, it is relatively locked. You shouldn't rewrite the abilities of the boss on the fly. You can't really alter much else than the boss, or fudge anything, simply because of how the various pieces work.
The game runs great. It is immensely fun, immensely creative, and easily 75% of the power is vested in the players. IT even recommends that when a narrative consequence happens in the story, that the player of that character is the one who offers what that consequence is. And the creators of the game, who have run it at cons for hundreds of players for years now (I think 4 years, multiple cons worldwide, running demos every day) have reported that often the players give themselves more debilitating consequences than the Editor would have.
The same reason you don't force trucks on every car owner. Sure trucks are fun and enjoyable for those that like them, but there are a lot of us who don't like trucks and don't want to drive one.So, it can be done. Without ruining the game. So why not?
Forcing those rules you just described above on everyone is going to have a negative effect on a whole lot of us. We aren't playing those sorts of games right now for reasons, including we don't like them.
Here is what you said.And you were wrong. I accused MYSELF of POTENTIALLY being mistaken. Because I didn't experience his life.
In fact, I think @Lyxen is about the only person I've seen on these forums who has seemed to not have had expeirenced a truly bad DM. And that is probably wrong, they probably have. So it is clearly common enough that people are aware of the issue.
There is no self accusation that you are potentially mistaken because of not experiencing his life. You tossed doubt on what he said from the get go with "who has seemed not to have expeirenced(sic) a truly bad DM." and then went into telling us that he was probably wrong about his own experiences, indicating that you felt you know his experiences better than he does.