Bolares
Legend
If Snarf will enjoy a bard scene, I'm afraid of what will be happening to the bard...
D&D General How to be a Better DM: One Size Doesn't Fit All
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Elephant rides, apparently.
Bolares
Legend
how could i forget! you made Snarf love bards in that thread.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
A bard, not "bards." And I'm pretty sure they loved the elephant far more.
Imagine there's no minstrels
It's easy if you try
No bards to annoy us
No lutes for them to try
Imagine all the people
Killin' a bard today
Ah
Imagine there's no troubadours
It isn't hard to do
No valor bards to annoy us
And no lore bards, too
Imagine all the people
Hackin' a bard to pieces
You
You may say that Snarf's a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join me
And all the bards in the world will be done
Bolares
Legend
yeah, you hate bards.... sure buddy
Let me correct that for you:
*And all the bards but Snarf will be done.
I sense a Bardlander vibe here (THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE)
I prefer Games Operation Director, shortening it to the acronym
Great post. Your stuff is hit or miss, but this was a critical hit!
People hopefully understand that everyone's post should just be advice, and you're correct that every source should be treated this way (particularly Sage Advice, which too many people take as gospel). A DM really needs to read the group and figure out how things work best for everyone. Unfortunately even for experienced DMs this is a process with a new group.
This greatly saddens me. When I first started all those years ago in 1E, it was common for DMs to apprentice potential DMs. While it was almost necessary back then, since the rules were only found in the DMG, I've tried to continue this tradition. I haven't taken one on since the beginning of 5E, but that's because I've only played with the same group since then, which is blessed with 4 out of 7 people being DMs. If I ever go back to running public games at a FLGS, I'll once again be on the lookout for potential DMs to see if any are interested.
I prefer Games Operation Director, shortening it to the acronym
"What's the difference between a DM and God?"
"God doesn't think he's a DM."
That's why my posts are so long! I operate on the "infinite number of monkeys" theory of posts; eventually, I will write something so long, and so ramble-y, that the complete works of Shakespeare will be within it.
The-Magic-Sword
Small Ball Archmage
To build on this post a bit, I think that a big part of why we actually grapple over definitions for 50 pages even when we become aware that our argument hinges over differences in semantics is because Language itself often defines our values, so the grappling over semantics is a kind of cultural battle over values. Take the thread about changing perceptions of roleplaying for instance, there are multiple instances where people utilize and defend language to promote their own gaming values, with multiple people fighting over the same word.
One poster views metagaming to include cheating by reading the monster manual, even as we're mostly talking about different means of making decisions (e.g. should I do what I as a player think is best to defeat the dragon, or will my character's emotional state have them do something else)
Another insisted to me that their desire to overcome obstacles was different than 'playing to win' because they had the perception that I wasn't tolerant of sub-optimal decisions, despite the fact that by the end it didn't seem like we had very different expectations at all, but saw our expectations differently-- to them it seemed like the way we played was an expected baseline of good faith effort in overcoming obstacles with 'playing to win' as some sweaty tryhard next level analogous to picking on children.
Then there was another person later who focused their entire argument on the manual's use of the word 'actor' as self evidentally referring to a specific process of thought, rather than as a more general descriptor.
These viewpoints hinge on grouping behaviors under the same language that could in theory, be separated.
One poster views metagaming to include cheating by reading the monster manual, even as we're mostly talking about different means of making decisions (e.g. should I do what I as a player think is best to defeat the dragon, or will my character's emotional state have them do something else)
Another insisted to me that their desire to overcome obstacles was different than 'playing to win' because they had the perception that I wasn't tolerant of sub-optimal decisions, despite the fact that by the end it didn't seem like we had very different expectations at all, but saw our expectations differently-- to them it seemed like the way we played was an expected baseline of good faith effort in overcoming obstacles with 'playing to win' as some sweaty tryhard next level analogous to picking on children.
Then there was another person later who focused their entire argument on the manual's use of the word 'actor' as self evidentally referring to a specific process of thought, rather than as a more general descriptor.
These viewpoints hinge on grouping behaviors under the same language that could in theory, be separated.
