Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8394798" data-attributes="member: 6801228">So, you would say that in a place with no rules and no laws, people would act the exact same as in a  place with rules and laws? The only difference is the character of the individual.Or, do you imagine it might be possible that these limits on DM do exist, and that those are acting to inhibit bad behavior? And that you simply refuse to acknowledge them?What you seem to be saying here is that the authority of the DM granted by the game is not part of how the game works. Which seems nonsensical, so could you try and explain this in a way that makes sense?Wow. I let it slide before, but seriously, this is just an incredibly rude position. By making this about you lying (which isn't about at all) you have now set up an expectation that one of us is lying, and it can't be you because you don't lie. And you can't be mistaken, because you understand the game, implying you understand it better than those who disagree with you. So, is it too much to ask for you to engage in a discussion without calling the people whom you disagree with ignorant/stupid and or liars? Because it really helps when one side doesn't paint itself as being the smarter more truthful side.Okay, how many of those games still hold a significant market share other than DnD and haven't gone over major revisions? Because the only one I can think of is GURPS and considering the main selling point of that game is ultimate customization, I don't think they really encourage GM supreme authority.Well, you have a massively biased perception. You have literally never been in any other type of game, so how would you know if a game where that was the case wouldn't be better? You are basically arguing "I've been blind from birth, so I know that Red is ugly and so it is going to take a lot of evidence to prove me wrong." You've literally never seen the other side, so of course your perception would be that there is no problem.Really? Because we have a DM here asking for advice, and showing a player who seems to my eye to simply be a little overly analytical and too excited to stop himself from talking out loud. He's been implied to be entitled and toxic to the game by at least three posters I believe. How easy would it be to get a crowd on this site against a group of players who "refused to let me run the curated game I wanted"? I've seen that pop up on these threads multiple times, a few bits of careful phrasing and you'll have a lot of people defending the DMs right to do anything. All it took you to start posting massive treatises on the DM's ultimate authority was someone suggesting that they might not have an ultimate authority.But it is such a small step to make, such a small slip of typing. I should know, I've had to be very very careful, because it is very easy to equate the two things. How easy is it for someone to hear, repeatedly "you can never cheat. Everything you do to improve the game is approved" and get the message "you can do no wrong."? I think a lot of us instinctually realize that the limits exist. It's why most people only fudge die rolls the players can't see. Because they know it would be unacceptable to do so in front of the players. I mean, try it sometime Max. You and your table believe in the ultimate unquestioned authority of the DM. Spend a session rolling dice in the open, ignoring those dice and just making up the answers you want. See how long that lasts.</blockquote>

Verification