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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="VinylTap" data-source="post: 6112980" data-attributes="member: 6697217">I think you're missing my point a bit. DMZ has suggested that because of so much structure in 4th why do you even need a DM? Why not just use a computer. I think that's taking it a little too far. You could play it like that perhaps, but it would be a boring game, and probably very close to a 'pure dungeon crawl' (which i don't think anyone wants for DND). Balesir on the other hand, argues DM interjection, where the PCs aren't controlling anything, merely rolling when the DM says roll, and to a DC that he sets, makes it less of a "game" (?) and probably more like a drama exercise. (apologies if i put words in your mouth, good sir). I'm just saying, with either game-- when you get down to actually playing it , is never or very rarely (if its a good DM) presented well in these extremes. Both systems are, in reality, a mix of both when they're working well. If a DM in 3rd doesn't present the info he's giving to his players with a "air" of impartial, its not going to be a great time. If a DM in 4th doesn't interject some story-telling flair, its going to fall flat unless a pure dungeon crawl was all you were looking for. Some people rejoice in the structure of 4th, while others long for the creative freedom of earlier systems, its a preference thing. But the systems are slants of those idea, neither embraces either sides fully- and both systems, in the hands of a good GM, can make up for the lack of whatever you want,  in either system. <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?27160-Balesir" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?27160-Balesir" target="_blank"></a></blockquote>

Verification