Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4045068" data-attributes="member: 2067">The thing about heavy arbitration is that it's extremely dependant on how good of a DM you have. The most successful and fun games have heavy arbitration, but the most awful, boring, and slow games have heavy arbitration, too. A good narrative DM doesn't need many rules beyond &quot;what I say goes.&quot; They can tell a good story no matter what system they use, just because they're naturally engaging, they know neat tricks, and when they make a descision,&nbsp; you know it's going to be basically for the better.But no one starts off as a good DM, and the great ones are rare, and I don't think D&amp;D should require a naturally good DM to be enjoyable to play. The rules are there, IMO, to ensure that otherwise good DMs don't do something that scuttles their own game because they are imperfect human beings, as well as to give the vast majority of mediocre and semi-decent DMs out there something to turn to. This, IIRC, was, in part, 3e's philosophy. Give them good rules, and they won't need a talented DM to have fun. It's a philosophy I wholeheartedly support, as a lazy, improv-heavy DM who would rather play the game than write the rules. I understand that 3e went a bit too extreme in this direction, though, and I'll be happy to see 4e reign it in, I'm just worried they'll go too far in some places, weakening, in my mind, the game I love.The rule of DM arbitration is an important and necessary one, I just don't want my fun as a player to depend on the lottery of DM quality, and I don't want my fun as a DM to depend on my ability/desire to make things up as I go. The heavier DM arbitration is emphasized, the more the game depends on good DMs. Good DMs have the best games, but I do want our medoicre and sub-par DMs to be able to run a fun game, too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 4045068, member: 2067"] The thing about heavy arbitration is that it's extremely dependant on how good of a DM you have. The most successful and fun games have heavy arbitration, but the most awful, boring, and slow games have heavy arbitration, too. A good narrative DM doesn't need many rules beyond "what I say goes." They can tell a good story no matter what system they use, just because they're naturally engaging, they know neat tricks, and when they make a descision, you know it's going to be basically for the better. But no one starts off as a good DM, and the great ones are rare, and I don't think D&D should require a naturally good DM to be enjoyable to play. The rules are there, IMO, to ensure that otherwise good DMs don't do something that scuttles their own game because they are imperfect human beings, as well as to give the vast majority of mediocre and semi-decent DMs out there something to turn to. This, IIRC, was, in part, 3e's philosophy. Give them good rules, and they won't need a talented DM to have fun. It's a philosophy I wholeheartedly support, as a lazy, improv-heavy DM who would rather play the game than write the rules. I understand that 3e went a bit too extreme in this direction, though, and I'll be happy to see 4e reign it in, I'm just worried they'll go too far in some places, weakening, in my mind, the game I love. The rule of DM arbitration is an important and necessary one, I just don't want my fun as a player to depend on the lottery of DM quality, and I don't want my fun as a DM to depend on my ability/desire to make things up as I go. The heavier DM arbitration is emphasized, the more the game depends on good DMs. Good DMs have the best games, but I do want our medoicre and sub-par DMs to be able to run a fun game, too. [/QUOTE]

Verification