Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7094276" data-attributes="member: 996">DM Empowerment & DM Em-Responsibility-ment OK, if that's what you meant to say.   I'd see it more as a shift from rules-manager (tracking/applying system), to referee (making calls).  :shrug:  But I suppose I was thinking of a hypothetical case of a low-empowerment/low-responsibility system vs one that was high in both, while... OK, that I get, with 3.x as a concrete example.  Yes, you needed to know the mechanics, because the mechanics gave players a /lot/ of options, and all you had to push-back with was the off-handed 'rule-0' that everyone acknowledged but no one gave much respect - or using the very similar options for your monsters & NPCs.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  It was a very player-empowering edition, and it still made the game very hard on the DM.  That contrasts with both 4e, which was also player-empowering but phone-it-in-easy to run, and 5e which is, of course, very DM-empowering, and also much less player-empowering, but between the prior two WotC editions in ease of DMing, but with the 'hard' part of DMing being more a matter of taking responsibility (the issue Manbearcat was getting at) for the success of the game rather than from needing to master/manage the system like in 3.x/PF (the point you made, and I finally grok, I think).And, like I at least tried to say, that sense of responsibility is an issue I think gets ignored when people complain about 5e being 'too easy' or 'imbalanced' or 'prone to illusionism' or whatever - that the DM has a responsibility, as a direct consequence of being Empowered, to make his campaign challenging, to give each PC their time in the sun, and to deliver a good play experience. Another bit I can agree with.  I run 5e, improvisationally, how I feel is best in the moment - I run a lot of games that way, including some people might say were 'impossible' to run that way - but 5e does make it easy with the expectations it engenders in players.  I don't need to consult a rule - if a player points one out, I'll work with it (which includes around it or overruling it for a good reason), otherwise, I'll go with what feels right, often including going with about how something worked in AD&D, when built up a lot of my DMing muscles. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], were you thinking of GM Empowerment vs Responsibility in terms of Agency with respect to a game like 5e (very high Empowerment, tempered by equally great Responsibility) vs a game like pemerton presents BW to be* (ie player-driven with lesser or shared-with-players Empowerment, but less/shared Responsibility for the success of the game, was well)?  As opposed to games like 3.5 (neither strictly player- nor DM-driven, per se, and with Empowerment one both sides of the screen coming through profound rewards for System Mastery, and, particularly on the player side, in consequence of a social contract typically emphasizing adherence to RAW)?* I've never even glanced at BW.</blockquote>

Verification