Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 8999880" data-attributes="member: 7035894">1.You say wrong, but then you describe exactly what I said but in slightly different language. So...okay. I agree.2. This is a partial quote, but again you are describing exactly the same thing as me. The DM is the world-builder, the person who decides what it is in the world and what is not, and the players decide how to react. So, again, agreed.3. The DM absolutely has the power, as written in AD&amp;D and continuing to this day, to set aside rules and rolls. The players do not have to agree. Your argument is something different: that the DM should not use this ability in an abusive way or the players will likely opt out. I agree! But the game explicitly gives that ability to the DM and trusts that they will use it wisely. I don't feel like I have to once again dredge up the various quotations; this is common knowledge.4. You then describe what sounds to me like a fantastic but also typical campaign, where the DM creates a world and invites the players to play in it. Realistic consequences for their actions, etc. Yes! That is a good, normal way of playing D&amp;D. But not what I am talking about in my OP or at various other points in the thread. I am discussing giving players the ability to take an active role on the world-building end of things. For instance, letting your players change that calendar not through your rulings, but through theirs.This is how a game like Fiasco works - world building is completely communal. D&amp;D is explicitly not intended to work that way; it is intended to have an all-powerful DM, aside from the free-willed player characters (as you describe in your campaign). What I am interested in is the degree of bleed that can happen between those roles while still keeping D&amp;D viable and fun. The degree to which a player can say, &quot;I suddenly notice a fire coming from over the ridge, and as I get closer I hear the screams of villagers&quot; and have the DM (to whom this is news) respond, &quot;yes, and...&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clint_L, post: 8999880, member: 7035894"] 1.You say wrong, but then [I]you describe exactly what I said but in slightly different language[/I]. So...okay. I agree. 2. This is a partial quote, but again you are describing [I]exactly the same thing as me[/I]. The DM is the world-builder, the person who decides what it is in the world and what is not, and the players decide how to react. So, again, agreed. 3. The DM absolutely has the power, as written in AD&D and continuing to this day, to set aside rules and rolls. The players do [I]not[/I] have to agree. Your argument is something different: that the DM should not use this ability in an abusive way or the players will likely opt out. I agree! But the game explicitly gives that ability to the DM and trusts that they will use it wisely. I don't feel like I have to once again dredge up the various quotations; this is common knowledge. 4. You then describe what sounds to me like a fantastic but also typical campaign, where the DM creates a world and invites the players to play in it. Realistic consequences for their actions, etc. Yes! That is a good, normal way of playing D&D. But not what I am talking about in my OP or at various other points in the thread. I am discussing giving players the ability to take an active role on the world-building end of things. For instance, letting your players [I]change that calendar[/I] not through your rulings, but through theirs. This is how a game like Fiasco works - world building is completely communal. D&D is explicitly not intended to work that way; it is intended to have an all-powerful DM, aside from the free-willed player characters (as you describe in your campaign). What I am interested in is the degree of bleed that can happen between those roles while still keeping D&D viable and fun. The degree to which a player can say, "I suddenly notice a fire coming from over the ridge, and as I get closer I hear the screams of villagers" and have the DM (to whom this is news) respond, "yes, and..." [/QUOTE]

Verification