NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7073489" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Absolutely. I was more commenting on the fact that this discussion has (d)evolved into a mirror of many other discussions in similar threads with the same participants. Many of whom seem to be focused on presenting their opinion as the "right" way to do things. And some that seem to be in the exact same language as posts elsewhere, but that's probably just me seeing the similarities. Obviously, there are approaches that some people feel strongly about, and that's cool.For example, there are certain people who feel very strongly that Illusionism is wrong, regardless of whether they know it's going on or not. Most of those that feel so strongly that they won't play with a DM that use it insist that they can tell when a DM is using it.The same argument pops up in a thread about whether DM should fudge dice rolls or not. I also see pieces of the canon thread creeping in. And the advice is helpful only to those DMs that are willing to acknowledge that the group in front of them might have strong feelings about a particularly play style or tool in the DM's toolbox. If not, they are going to run into problems.I for one don't have a problem with illusionism or occasional DM fudging. If the group is expecting the DM to be the primary author of an overarching epic story with the PCs as the centerpiece, and that character death is a very bad thing, then these are tools that the DM is going to have to be comfortable pulling out periodically.On the other hand, you might find yourself playing with somebody who states when they sit down at the table for the first time that they will not play with a DM that uses these tools. Among your options as a DM are to not use those tools in that group, to tell the player that you sometimes use those tools and let them decide whether they want to give it a try, or say you won't and use them anyway. The first option is usually the one I choose, but it becomes problematic when you have a group with players at the two extremes - one abhors any sort of DM interference (fudging, illusionism) into "player agency" and the other will have a cow if their PC dies. So what sort of DM do you (the collective "you") want to be? I'm willing to consider using whatever approach the players as a group decide. There may still be an outlier that disagrees, and then it's up to the table (and often the DM) to decide if one veto rules the table, or if majority rules. On the other hand, I'm refining my home-brew rules, and while they are open for some discussion, the core purpose behind them will remain, even if the specifics vary a bit. In other words, there are a number of non-negotiable things in my campaigns now, and probably more than most campaigns.</blockquote>

Verification