Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DaveDash" data-source="post: 6629118" data-attributes="member: 6786202">DM freedom is a flaw for me. It's a feature however, and probably a good one. It's impact on me in practice is fairly negligible, but in principle it's one I oppose.Truth be told I much prefer playing a game than living out some narrative fantasy. I much much prefer pathfinders approach than 5es - in principal. I hate THoM games, and I hate DM styles who just let players do whatever is creative, regardless of the rules. I love RAW, and I love RAW mastery.5e unfortunately for me happens to be a lot more fun however than pathfinder, which is old, clunky, and tedious in practice, but I'll always be an advocate for a little DM power as possible, as I view the DM as another player at the table, first amongst equals, but a flawed human still.I firmly believe that sacrificing some &quot;simulationism&quot; for consistent set of boundaries increases the satisfaction of all players long term, as they're guaranteed a consistent set of boundaries to work with, and cast rest assured with *total* confidence that any achievement (or error) is purely their and theirs alone.Despite what other posters here think, they're not being consistent across All Things. They're sacrificing consistency for an abstract line in their head that crosses some sort of &quot;realism&quot; line. This is just an endless debate in play style, which I can accept. What I don't accept however is that there is some RAW justification for certain forcecage rulings here which I am opposed to. There simply isn't. It's play style pure and simple.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DaveDash, post: 6629118, member: 6786202"] DM freedom is a flaw for me. It's a feature however, and probably a good one. It's impact on me in practice is fairly negligible, but in principle it's one I oppose. Truth be told I much prefer playing a game than living out some narrative fantasy. I much much prefer pathfinders approach than 5es - in principal. I hate THoM games, and I hate DM styles who just let players do whatever is creative, regardless of the rules. I love RAW, and I love RAW mastery. 5e unfortunately for me happens to be a lot more fun however than pathfinder, which is old, clunky, and tedious in practice, but I'll always be an advocate for a little DM power as possible, as I view the DM as another player at the table, first amongst equals, but a flawed human still. I firmly believe that sacrificing some "simulationism" for consistent set of boundaries increases the satisfaction of all players long term, as they're guaranteed a consistent set of boundaries to work with, and cast rest assured with *total* confidence that any achievement (or error) is purely their and theirs alone. Despite what other posters here think, they're not being consistent across All Things. They're sacrificing consistency for an abstract line in their head that crosses some sort of "realism" line. This is just an endless debate in play style, which I can accept. What I don't accept however is that there is some RAW justification for certain forcecage rulings here which I am opposed to. There simply isn't. It's play style pure and simple. [/QUOTE]

Verification