Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8993434" data-attributes="member: 7039850">It is not quite that simple. There are some things prescribed. The players need to prepare a form according to quite strict rules and bring them to that activity. However how these forms are used later in the activity is indeed prescribed by suggestions rather than rules. Some suggestions are stronger and more elaborate than others though. For instance a DM might use various tricks to formally avoid declaring combat, but if that formality is invoked we are entering into a procedural regime that I would say is even more tightly game-defined than DWs counterpart.As for defining what is "good" and "bad" DM. Why would you want the text to say anything about that? The rules of the game snake and ladder for instance do not say anything about what a good player looks like. Still I there are certain things that is common knowledge makes a snake and ladder player better than another despite both adhering to the very strict and well defined procedures of the activity: Not being a sore loser, roll in a timely manner and display of aproperiate engagement (rather than apathy) are some examples that come to mind.Moreover the absence of clear performance criteria for its participants is the big fat well known common trait of almost all ttrpgs that have had theorists struggle with figuring how the activity still appear to be reasonably considered a game vs simply play.And finally there have been arguments that D&D could be considered an art form. And attempts of trying to talk about what makes "good" vs "bad" art tend to prove utterly futile. So why should the DMG try? If an artsy DM ask their players to prepare their forms and then proceed to lead a shared story session with no reference to those forms at all - as a wider comment on bureaucracy, how could you say if this is good or bad DMing?(As for if they in this case actually would be playing D&D at all I think the act of bringing that form and deferring to another participant to organise an activity is indeed enough to at least being quite recognizable as something very similar to playing D&D. I cannot see how an argument against it being actually playing D&D could be made without invoking potentially controversial criteria. Anyway, this is beside the point I am trying to make with regard to the issue of defining good vs bad play)</blockquote>

Verification