Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2246896" data-attributes="member: 4937">As an example, yes it is.  But, since its easy to see why you would be confused - since D&D and poker are both games - then I won't hold it against you.Because D&D is a fully open ended game without teams, without competition, without winners and losers, and with out a set of rules that fully covers every possible game situation.  Because you aren't changing rules to try to win.   In poker, everyone is trying to win, so if someone changes the rules, it changes the chances of who wins, and people like to win and they like to have at least an equal chance of winning.  In D&D, winning is simply having fun.  There is no other 'victory condition' in the game. Because of all the players at the table, the DM is the one who most clearly sees that the game isn't about winning.  The DM has the power of creation.  There is nothing in the game that he can't create and add to it.   There is nothing in the game he can't replace.  So the DM has an infinite ammount of toys.  If the DM loses one, its no big deal.   The DM has a full toybox and he can play with anything he wants.   Moreover, the DM has spent more time working on creating the game than any other player.  You respect the DM the same way you respect anyone who has greater responcibility than yourself, or the way you would respect an artist who has devoted himself to gaining skill in something.  Not respecting the DM is like not respecting the authority and sacrifice of the person who just prepared for you a lavish meal - and the greater the artistry of the 'cook' the more this is true.On the other hand, the toys which the PC's have to play with are limited and they must protect them.  So, the temptation to forget that the game is not a competitive one is greater.But, to this extent I agree with you.  If a PC forgets that the game is a cooperattive game, the loss of pleasure is smaller.  But if the DM forgets that the game is a cooperative game, and begins to compete with the PC's - how terrible of a thing that is.  The real issue is not therefore that the rules are flexible tools in the DM's hands, but why and how the DM uses them.Of course.  Any DM who changes the rules in order to show off and brag is an idiot who has forgotten why he is the DM.  Being a DM requires more maturity than that.   But remember, the group is there to have fun, not tell the DM how to run the game.  Any PC that forgets that has forgotten what the purpose of the game is.RPG's are not merely games.  They differ from ordinary games in very important ways.  For instance, its possible to play an RPG without knowing any of the rules.   In fact, it can be alot of fun to play an RPG without knowing any of the rules.   I've done it, so trying to convince me that it can't be done is impossible.  It's also possible to play an RPG without any rules at all simply by cooperating and resolving conflicts as they arise.  In fact, I've done that before too.  One games combat system was nothing more than the two players took turns describing thier fight, and the one that felt that the other one had given the most entertaining description after a while conceeded the fight.  That isn't to say that rules don't serve an important purpose, but only that RPG's don't need rules in the same way that ordinary games do.Do you see that the problem here is not with the rules change itself, but with the lack of fairness of the rule, having the wrong purpose in the rule change, and the lack of consistancy between the ruling and reasonable expectation - namely that full plate is specifically designed for mounted warriors (knights) precisely because its weight reduces the mobility of an unmounted warrior too greatly?? Me too.  It defeats the purpose of having players in the game if you are going to try to tell them what to do.  You might as well just spend your time writing novels.</blockquote>

Verification