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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9616363" data-attributes="member: 6785785">No one has said that the GM must be limited in the same ways as the players. Again, this is you reading things into the comments that are not there. But yes, the reason to have limits is to enhance the game. I would very much argue against the idea that the DM has no personal stake in the game. Based on what you've written above... where players have but one character and the DM an entire multiverse... I'd say that most DMs have far more at stake in the game than any player. No, no one said that. Again... you ask the question, but then come up with your own answer that's a guess and which is way off. It has nothing to do with harm to the characters. The reason I prefer limits on my authority as a GM is to let the results of play determine how things go. To not control the whole world so tightly. So that I can be surprised by what happens and I'm not just steering things the way I want or expect them to go. I also find that when I'm constrained as a GM, my creativity is put to the test much more. As a player, I prefer that the GM be constrained in ways because I want my choices to matter. I don't want the GM to secretly be deciding the outcomes of everything. I want there to be an actual game of some sort going on. If the rules and game mechanics are subject to the GM's approval, then we could just not roll and have the GM tell us the story of what he thinks will happen. Perhaps not directly, but all your guesses about how different games work are really flawed. Like your bit above about it being related to preventing harm to characters, which then destroys the game... no one is advocating for that. So why bring it up? I said it was D&D. If you heard someone talking about coin flipping for a fireball result, you'd know that something was odd. Yes, exactly.</blockquote>

Verification