No it's not. Those kinds of DMs will break the rules and change things anyway. The abuses will be about the same with the same result. Lost players.
Except that it doesn't. The number of abusers doesn't change, because the vast majority of us aren't douches and aren't going to abuse the game regardless, and the few that are will do it regardless of any limitations.
You can't redesign RPGs for that, either.
Bad DMs will still use weighted dice(modifying that saw so it cuts flesh anyway). Non-bad DMs would never have used weighted dice in the first place, so you're attempting to fix a problem that isn't fixable, nor even really much of a problem. Just leave the game and have fun with someone else.
Nope. It's impossible to redesign the game in that manner. Even if you put into the rules that the players can outvote the DM, a bad DM will just ignore that rule and push on. The only real recourse for a bad DM is leaving the game and getting another DM.
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?
You seem to take the approach that that individual is just fundamentally broken and nothing caused it. I disagree. 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.
Group dynamics are important, and there is an issue in setting up a group where one person is an unquestioned leader, and leaving it to individuals to decide when they don't like the leader and leave, without giving the group a space to make decisions.
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.
I've had bad GM experiences with both Vampire the Masquerade and Exalted. This is not a D&D specific thing and I sincerely doubt it happens in any lower percentage of games with other game systems. You just hear less about it, because far fewer people play those systems.
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.
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.
So, it can be done. Without ruining the game. So why not?
Utterly wrong, but understanding me(and others from what I can see) isn't your strong suit.
Maybe you're new here, but I've been present on this site for years and you will be told(in some manner) that you did something wrong with just about any position you take.
And praised by people for the same position. And who do you listen to more closely, the people who tell you you are wrong and terrible, or the people who tell you that you are completely right and those other people are just trouble makers?
Wrong again! I never said that you implied that he was a liar. I said straight out that you did what I did, which was accuse him of being mistaken. That's it.
He has accused you of saying he was a liar. I don't agree with that. You just called him mistaken about things he experienced with his life and you did not.
And you were wrong. I accused
MYSELF of
POTENTIALLY being mistaken. Because I didn't experience his life.
I've said it three times now, but I'm sure you don't believe me, because I obviously have no idea what I said or what I intended. You clearly understand my intents better than I do, which is hilariously the same faux pas you keep accusing me of
