Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 6089533" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Issue 308: June 2003part 8/9Dungeoncraft: Monte tackles the obvious topic in a column called Dungeoncraft. Building a dungeon! While the formatting is different, the advice here isn't too different to Ray's advice on this three years ago. The dungeon needs a reason to exist, both in and out of game, and it's design should stem logically from it's surrounding area, the creatures that live there, and the tools they had to build it with. The main difference is that while Ray was always working on a specific example while giving his advice, Monte isn't, which also means his advice is less decompressed, as he isn't looking to stretch a topic out over an entire year. Which will turn out to be more useful overall still remains up in the air, but we should get to the point faster this time, which means it'll also be more friendly to newcomers. Hopefully he'll still hit some points Ray didn't despite that, keeping this useful to me. The play's the thing: Penny gives her perspective on a proper player-DM relationship, which unsurprisingly differs from Robin's one. Wheras he wants a negotiated social contract where everyone gets a say in how the game turns out, Penny wants you to suck up to the DM (for they have the power of life and death over you), buy snacks to reward them for their effort, and don't backtalk their rulings. I think this may be wishful thinking on her part, since she was an RPGA coordinator for years, and therefore had to put up with all the worst rules disputes and player-DM conflicts with added bureaucracy for dessert. I can see why that would lead to a degree of cynicism about player's ability to decide things sensibly for themselves and a wish that they'd just learn and follow the rules, listen to the DM and do what they say. So this article feels decidedly regressive in contrast with the advice from last year, and behind the humour is a genuine belief that the DM should be the boss of the group socially, not just in game. Which again, is a necessary attitude when involved in organised play, but not so much when you're just a group of friends meeting up at someone's house. Can't say I'm very keen on this one then, especially when contrasted with some other advice we've got over the years. It's very much the worst kind of old school.</blockquote>

Verification