Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7585903" data-attributes="member: 22779">It has always been a power struggle.&nbsp; Always.&nbsp; From Day 1, there has been a tension between the power at the table between the DM and the players.&nbsp; Every edition of the game and many other games beside have been written to address this tension.&nbsp; 3e took the tension and wrapped it up in the mechanics - taking the power away from both the players and the DM in an attempt to level the playing field.&nbsp; 4e went much further and tried to hand more power to the players by making the mechanics very predictable.&nbsp; 5e has swung back the other way by putting power back in the DM's hands with the whole &quot;rulings not rules&quot; approach.Me, I prefer the players to have more control over the game than what 5e advocates for.&nbsp; I do.&nbsp; I want the players to be able to tell me what happens in the game when they try to do something, rather than the other way around.&nbsp; My vision of the table is that the DM is first of equals rather than a more traditional pyramid approach which 5e pushes for.Which means, I'm not going to approach the game the way you are.&nbsp; The notion that the players should try to avoid skill checks because skill checks are too random, wouldn't occur to me.&nbsp; Players should be trying to use their skills because successes let them tell me what happens in the game.&nbsp; You rolled a fantastic persuasion check, congratulations. You get to tell me that you bypassed that guard that you were trying to talk your way past.It's not a better/worse thing.&nbsp; It's about me relaxing a lot of control over the game and placing it squarely in the hands of my players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7585903, member: 22779"] It has always been a power struggle. Always. From Day 1, there has been a tension between the power at the table between the DM and the players. Every edition of the game and many other games beside have been written to address this tension. 3e took the tension and wrapped it up in the mechanics - taking the power away from both the players and the DM in an attempt to level the playing field. 4e went much further and tried to hand more power to the players by making the mechanics very predictable. 5e has swung back the other way by putting power back in the DM's hands with the whole "rulings not rules" approach. Me, I prefer the players to have more control over the game than what 5e advocates for. I do. I want the players to be able to tell me what happens in the game when they try to do something, rather than the other way around. My vision of the table is that the DM is first of equals rather than a more traditional pyramid approach which 5e pushes for. Which means, I'm not going to approach the game the way you are. The notion that the players should try to avoid skill checks because skill checks are too random, wouldn't occur to me. Players should be trying to use their skills because successes let them tell me what happens in the game. You rolled a fantastic persuasion check, congratulations. You get to tell me that you bypassed that guard that you were trying to talk your way past. It's not a better/worse thing. It's about me relaxing a lot of control over the game and placing it squarely in the hands of my players. [/QUOTE]

Verification