Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8394988" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I don't doubt that the vast majority of people would still be decent, but that has nothing to do with the point. The point is that some people would stop acting decently. You say laws don't prevent crimes, and yet to a degree they do. Speed Limit signs don't prevent everyone from speeding, but they do prevent most people from speeding, and there are a few that wouldn't go 30 miles per hour through a residential section if the sign wasn't there. In fact, they didn't, which is why the sign exists.So, it isn't part of how the game works because most DMs don't take their authority as far as they are "legally" allowed to in most games? If that is the case, what would be the issue with putting a sign post up at those extreme edges where you don't see it in typical game play and saying "You are reaching the limits of your authority"? In typical game play, you wouldn't even notice the difference. It would be a purely hypothetical limit on your power as a DM.If there is no expectation about either of us lying, why did you feel the need to specifiy THREE TIMES that you will not lie, and therefore you must say yadda yadda yadda. No one was bringing up lying. Yet you felt the need to specify that you aren't a liar. Because if you agreed with me, then you'd be a liar. And you want to make sure we know you aren't a liar. Which you would be if you agreed with me.It cuts real close to calling me a liar, since you felt the need to keep repeating it. Even though, again, NO ONE was talking about any of us lying. Having a different viewpoint isn't lying. So drop it.Right, and DnD is an anomaly in this respect. Holding onto these out-dated notions of needing absolute control over the game held by one person. Looking to other games that run in similar fashions, there is no issue brought up by balancing the power more between players and DMs. And I think it leads to a far healthier game, because it makes it more true that the game is about a group of people telling a story together, rather than one person telling a story and a group of people trying to conform to that story.Yes, it does matter. Because you have played in games where people were unhappy, where the game was bad. And since you have, by your own admission, never once played a game without DM ultimate authority, you have no idea if those bad games had been held in a different context, if they'd have turned out differently. And considering the sheer number of stories I have heard of terrible DMs who make up rules on the spot to enforce the story they want to tell... I think there is some evidence that there are bad games created by this rampant idea of unlimited and unquestioned DM authority.Okay, I'm not playing this game yet again Max. Evidence of a trend does not need to be identical in every way to a proposed situation. Not having identical situations is not a False Equivalence. Get a new buzzword.Didn't attribute it to you, so stop taking it personally. There is a general sense that as long as the DM is working to make "a better game" that they are in the right. This has come up in multiple contexts where a player who isn't happy with how the DM has set up or run the game is labeled as the problem, with a nearly implicit understanding that the DM cannot be wrong. And, again, I don't think setting up conversations that start with the premise that one-side is nearly always in the right, barring extreme abuses, is a healthy way forward. Which is exactly what started this tangent. People began posting about how this player was entitled, this player was a problem, this player ect ect ect. And yet, looking at the rules of the game, a PC is supposed to know when a spell is cast. And reading their actual questions, none of them were distrusting the DM or seeking to undermine them, it was all just analysis. And yet, the player was the problem, and I think part of that comes from this conception that the player HAS to be the problem, because the DM is incapable of being the problem unless they are doing something extreme.Not what I said. I'm not talking about occassionally rolling the die, then deciding that you didn't want to roll the die. I'm talking about for an entire session, rolling the die, then declaring the numbers you want to see, instead of what the die says.</blockquote>

Verification