Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8398011" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Wow. So, you think people are only Bad DMs if they have suffered abuse and are neurally divergent. That is really telling. I don't think someone needs therapy and a diagnosis to just be an naughty word who got the wrong paradigm in his head. It can be way simpler than that.No, you are supporting my main thrust here. You only think a Bad DM can come from someone who has been failed by society, abused, needing mental health assitance and therapy. This is an extreme step. Not everyone who lords over small bits of power is a sociopath who was abused as a child. No wonder you think nothing can change, you view any issue with the DM as a mental health issue.What damage? I've asked this a few times and yet you've never explained what harm I am doing to your ability to run the game if you are no longer the sole lord and master, unquestioned and unchallenged.So again, setting it up so that the DM should discuss with their players before making changes that directly affect the characters and their abilities. That is a proposed change. How is this doing damage to your ability to run the game?UGHPossibly [it is because you hear less about it, because far fewer people play those systems.] So, no, it didn't happen. Because you can't have "this result may be because of fewer people playing the system so news about it is less frequent" happen. Obviously I didn't mean that "possibly Maxperson is telling the truth"  I disagree. First of all, you can still tailor the game and ditch portions of the rules that interfere with the group's enjoyment without unfettered fiat. And, if you just do a thing without explanation, that breaks a well-established rule, then the players could easily get confused. And it doesn't "destroy the session" to step back, and propose a solution to an obvious problem. Because the players are going to know the rule isn't making sense, so you don't need to explain it. and if you do... then maybe it is best to explain it, because the players aren't on the same page. Or maybe they are expecting the thing that doesn't make sense to you, and you are harming their plans by just changing it with no warning or discussion.And this isn't about your personal enjoyment, is it? It is about the role of the DM. And if you, as a DM, require unfettered authority as part of your enjoyment of the game...And how dare the designers stop producing 4e and force 5e upon people. Plenty of people liked 5e, and they weren't playing a game like 5e for many reasons. Games evolve. And your personal preferences to have unfettered authority isn't what we are disucssing.So, let me get this straight. I have twice now clarified myself, recognizing that my phrasing was not perfect. You are telling me I am wrong about my own intentions, and that you are correct in accusing me of accusing someone of being wrong about their own experiences, and that I felt I knew them better than he did himself. Well, I couldn't write a more ridiculously ironic situation if I tried. Truly, life is stranger than fiction. You are convinced that you know my intentions better than me, and that I was acting inappropriately in acting like I knew Lyxen's intentions better than him.Does it do anything other than give unfettered power to the DM? If it does, then it is relevant. If not, then I don't see your point.</blockquote>

Verification