Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4186335" data-attributes="member: 30001">I think the defensiveness I've seen in some of the posts (&quot;I'd do such and such to any player that even thought about putting a rat into a bag&quot;) IMO is indicative of people who *don't* believe that they are logically on solid ground.&nbsp; There's no reason to be so insecure otherwise.&nbsp; If it's really all that natural and obvious then that's the end of it.But IME, &quot;natural&quot;, &quot;obvious&quot;, &quot;clearly&quot; etc. are often in the eye of the beholder and players often have legitimate reasons to see things differently.&nbsp; The name-calling that's gone on in this thread regarding those interpretations IMO is not warranted or respectful.&nbsp; You're just a DM, not an expert on other people's morality/character.So I find a strategy of &quot;if a player uses this element of the game in the way that I didn't anticipate, they're being a jerk&quot; is disrespectful and narrow-minded - and this goes for game designers that are tempted to be lazy about thinking through things.&nbsp; As much as some DMs probably hate to share control, DnD IMO is a shared environment.&nbsp; Players want to be creative with the elements they have to work with.&nbsp; You have a feat, a bag, and some rats and if you think of a way to put those together to accomplish something then it's not evil for you to do so.&nbsp; What's evil IMO is a DM or game designer who thinks that the only legitimate ideas are the ones that he's comfortable with.&nbsp; IMNSHO, to some degree a successful DM must realize that he has to share a degree of authority with the players and the rule system, otherwise you'll just wind up DMing for zombies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 4186335, member: 30001"] I think the defensiveness I've seen in some of the posts ("I'd do such and such to any player that even thought about putting a rat into a bag") IMO is indicative of people who *don't* believe that they are logically on solid ground. There's no reason to be so insecure otherwise. If it's really all that natural and obvious then that's the end of it. But IME, "natural", "obvious", "clearly" etc. are often in the eye of the beholder and players often have legitimate reasons to see things differently. The name-calling that's gone on in this thread regarding those interpretations IMO is not warranted or respectful. You're just a DM, not an expert on other people's morality/character. So I find a strategy of "if a player uses this element of the game in the way that I didn't anticipate, they're being a jerk" is disrespectful and narrow-minded - and this goes for game designers that are tempted to be lazy about thinking through things. As much as some DMs probably hate to share control, DnD IMO is a shared environment. Players want to be creative with the elements they have to work with. You have a feat, a bag, and some rats and if you think of a way to put those together to accomplish something then it's not evil for you to do so. What's evil IMO is a DM or game designer who thinks that the only legitimate ideas are the ones that he's comfortable with. IMNSHO, to some degree a successful DM must realize that he has to share a degree of authority with the players and the rule system, otherwise you'll just wind up DMing for zombies. [/QUOTE]

Verification