Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8608505" data-attributes="member: 6785785">This last bit about being entertaining is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm talking about contributing to the events of play. An odd thing happened here. I was talking about the game, and you split it up into characters for the players, and setting for the DM. But I'm talking about the collective activity of the game. But your assertions here have clearly been proven not to be true for other players and GMs or other games. So is this something you think is specific to you and your players, or to D&D in general? Do you think so? I'm not sure what metric you'd be using, but I also think we'd be splitting hairs. If all the players are not engaged, I can't really see the game as better where only the GM is not engaged. Why not?Well, I don't think anyone is arguing for removing the GM as having final say. Also, no one's talking about some kind of situation where the players can't or won't accept the GM's authority, but are talking about a situation where the GM knowingly shares some amount of authority with the players. It absolutely depends on the game you're playing, but what I was really talking about was commitment to the game and contributing as an active participant, which you mention in the last part of your post.</blockquote>