Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6208718" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, let's not fall into the trap of confirmation bias.  After all, the first two only describe the most unstable and poorly run groups I've ever been in and have led to player revolts every single time.  And, in the interests of being open, it's been five or six different groups (I moved a LOT) over the years and only a single time that I led a player revolt.So, for me, it's the opposite.  Games where the DM is far less authoritarian, where the group, as a group, makes most of the decisions and even at the campaign level, players have a great deal of input, is far more the norm for me.  I mean, I listen to things like Fear the Boot and other gaming podcasts, and it looks like more egalitarian tables are far from uncommon.Then again, I've almost never played in a group with a single DM.  Whether I was the DM or a player, virtually every group I've ever gamed with has had multiple players with DMing experience.  Which means that the idea of "My way or the highway" carries a whole lot less power when the players can say, "You mean I get to DM now?  Great!!!"When there's two or three other DM's in your group who are perfectly willing to step up to the plate at any point in time, it becomes a whole different dynamic.</blockquote>