Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5497776" data-attributes="member: 2011">Maybe you should re-read it. You've skipped some sections that are pertinent.The advice is in the improv section, but the terminology in it is still anti- &quot;Saying No&quot;.Wait, it's in a section on improv, but it talks about changing your original script and claims that it &quot;might be better&quot;, but that it actually &quot;is better&quot;.Err, no. That's not my job. I'm not playing improv which has a totally different set of rules and expectations than what I am playing.Not &quot;the players might end up frustrated&quot;, but that they actually do end up frustrated.If you do not see how condescending the way this was written, it's not worth discussing. The intent is fine, but the way it is written is very poorly done.This is not the only way to play the game, this is not the preferred way to play the game for many players, this is not even necessarily a good way to play the game.This is not the way I've ever seen the game played where the DM is unprepared and then plays improve theater with his players.In our games, the DM is prepared. The players sometimes go off on a side trek, but the DM decides what is observable on the side trek or not. The players do not.If a given DM needs that crutch and has difficulty thinking on the fly without leading player input, fine. But the DMG shouldn't be telling everyone to do it that way and imply that it is badwrongfun if we don't.You'll also note that there are other sections in the DMG where other styles of DMing the game are discussed. In those sections, the DMG generally does not support one style to the exclusion of others. For example, on rolling behind the screen, it states the pros and cons of doing so and doesn't make a judgement call.In the Improvisation section, it makes a judgement call. One way is good, not doing so is &quot;a loss&quot;. I happen to disagree with that judgement call the majority of the time and I also thought that it was poorly written. You might happen to agree with that judgement call.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 5497776, member: 2011"] Maybe you should re-read it. You've skipped some sections that are pertinent. The advice is in the improv section, but the terminology in it is still anti- "Saying No". Wait, it's in a section on improv, but it talks about changing your original script and claims that it "might be better", but that it actually "is better". Err, no. That's not my job. I'm not playing improv which has a totally different set of rules and expectations than what I am playing. Not "the players might end up frustrated", but that they actually do end up frustrated. If you do not see how condescending the way this was written, it's not worth discussing. The intent is fine, but the way it is written is very poorly done. This is not the only way to play the game, this is not the preferred way to play the game for many players, this is not even necessarily a good way to play the game. This is not the way I've ever seen the game played where the DM is unprepared and then plays improve theater with his players. In our games, the DM is prepared. The players sometimes go off on a side trek, but the DM decides what is observable on the side trek or not. The players do not. If a given DM needs that crutch and has difficulty thinking on the fly without leading player input, fine. But the DMG shouldn't be telling everyone to do it that way and imply that it is badwrongfun if we don't. You'll also note that there are other sections in the DMG where other styles of DMing the game are discussed. In those sections, the DMG generally does not support one style to the exclusion of others. For example, on rolling behind the screen, it states the pros and cons of doing so and doesn't make a judgement call. In the Improvisation section, it makes a judgement call. One way is good, not doing so is "a loss". I happen to disagree with that judgement call the majority of the time and I also thought that it was poorly written. You might happen to agree with that judgement call. [/QUOTE]

Verification