Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2246783" data-attributes="member: 4937">Errr... how many team sports are good examples of non-competitive events?&nbsp; ERRRRR... THE DM IS ON A DIFFERENT TEAM THAN THE PLAYERS????&nbsp; What the heck are you talking about?&nbsp; Everyone setting at the table is on the same team!!!&nbsp; The DM and the PC's are on the same team.&nbsp;&nbsp; If the PC party gets in a fight and the characters start trying to kill each other, the players are still on the same team!!!&nbsp; If everyone has fun, the whole team wins- DM and PC's.&nbsp; If someone doesn't have fun, the whole team loses.&nbsp;&nbsp; For the love of God, do you honestly think the DM is trying to win?????&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you think TPK's are fun for the DM???&nbsp; Do you think the DM 'wins' when he kills PC's?&nbsp; If this was the case, the PC's would NEVER win.&nbsp; Clearly, we have very different ideas about what constitutes an immature attitude to role playing.We also have a different idea of what constitutes inconsistancy.&nbsp; In my opinion, what the party expects is constitancy in your rulings - whether or not they know what the underlying rules are (because often the players don't).&nbsp; In the case where the rules produce radically different results than a common sense suggests, ei if they violate, &quot;Characters should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could.&quot;, then this is a much more serious form of inconsistancy than merely adjusting the rules as needed.&nbsp; You are assuming that the way to play is rules centric.&nbsp; All the players learn the rules and then phrase actions in terms of the rules (or are assisted in doing so), and then the DM just applies the rules to the action.&nbsp;&nbsp; I am assuming that the way to play is RP centric, and that players don't need to know the rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; All the players phrase thier actions in terms of the simulated environment - alluding to the rules only as necessary and then minimally - and then the DM seeks to apply the rules in the way that best covers the player's intention - consulting the player as necessary so as to be sure he understands the player's intention.&nbsp;&nbsp; Knowledge of the rules is only necessary in so far as it can make the DM's job easier and the game play more smoothly and quickly, but ultimately that the sort of consistancy expected by the players is largely rules independent.&nbsp; In point of fact though, I as the DM seek to find and develop rules sets that require minimum on the fly adjustment by me - not because I don't have a right to adjust them - but the game just plays more smoothly if I don't have to invent solutions all the time.If you must have an analogy to a team 'sport', D&amp;D has alot more in common with 'mountain challenges' and 'ropes courses' than it has with soccer.&nbsp;&nbsp; Soccer is a competitive sport involving two teams.&nbsp; D&amp;D is not. The DM sets a 'ropes course' filled with various intriguing challenges that the party must work together to overcome.&nbsp;&nbsp; If the DM - 'ropes course manager' -&nbsp; decides at any point, &quot;OK, now you have to do this challenge with part of the group blindfolded', then that is part of the fun.&nbsp;&nbsp; What separates a good DM from a bad DM is simply that he makes the whole experience fun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 2246783, member: 4937"] Errr... how many team sports are good examples of non-competitive events? ERRRRR... THE DM IS ON A DIFFERENT TEAM THAN THE PLAYERS???? What the heck are you talking about? Everyone setting at the table is on the same team!!! The DM and the PC's are on the same team. If the PC party gets in a fight and the characters start trying to kill each other, the players are still on the same team!!! If everyone has fun, the whole team wins- DM and PC's. If someone doesn't have fun, the whole team loses. For the love of God, do you honestly think the DM is trying to win????? Do you think TPK's are fun for the DM??? Do you think the DM 'wins' when he kills PC's? If this was the case, the PC's would NEVER win. Clearly, we have very different ideas about what constitutes an immature attitude to role playing. We also have a different idea of what constitutes inconsistancy. In my opinion, what the party expects is constitancy in your rulings - whether or not they know what the underlying rules are (because often the players don't). In the case where the rules produce radically different results than a common sense suggests, ei if they violate, "Characters should be able to move anywhere and in any manner that you can imagine real people could.", then this is a much more serious form of inconsistancy than merely adjusting the rules as needed. You are assuming that the way to play is rules centric. All the players learn the rules and then phrase actions in terms of the rules (or are assisted in doing so), and then the DM just applies the rules to the action. I am assuming that the way to play is RP centric, and that players don't need to know the rules. All the players phrase thier actions in terms of the simulated environment - alluding to the rules only as necessary and then minimally - and then the DM seeks to apply the rules in the way that best covers the player's intention - consulting the player as necessary so as to be sure he understands the player's intention. Knowledge of the rules is only necessary in so far as it can make the DM's job easier and the game play more smoothly and quickly, but ultimately that the sort of consistancy expected by the players is largely rules independent. In point of fact though, I as the DM seek to find and develop rules sets that require minimum on the fly adjustment by me - not because I don't have a right to adjust them - but the game just plays more smoothly if I don't have to invent solutions all the time. If you must have an analogy to a team 'sport', D&D has alot more in common with 'mountain challenges' and 'ropes courses' than it has with soccer. Soccer is a competitive sport involving two teams. D&D is not. The DM sets a 'ropes course' filled with various intriguing challenges that the party must work together to overcome. If the DM - 'ropes course manager' - decides at any point, "OK, now you have to do this challenge with part of the group blindfolded', then that is part of the fun. What separates a good DM from a bad DM is simply that he makes the whole experience fun. [/QUOTE]

Verification