Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6152257" data-attributes="member: 17106">I see that perspective. However, I find it hard to imagine that a DM could ever be only a referee. He is responsible for everything outside of the PCs, and whatever world he chooses to play in and whatever game he chooses to run, I don't see a truly laissez faire DM. A true referee doesn't decide when the rules are worthwhile to employ and when not (whereas &quot;handwaving&quot; is de rigeur in D&amp;D). Nor does he change the rules as he goes (which is part and parcel of DMing). On a more philosophical level, the DM largely decides the tone of the game.To me, the distinguishing aspect of D&amp;D is that the DM has essentially 99% control, and the players only control the 1% things that their characters control. And indeed, that's what makes it a true &quot;role playing game&quot;, and that 1% is enough to make it so that no one person is driving the bus and the results of the game are unpredictable. Giving players power outside of their characters' knowledge and abilities takes you into different territory, which can either be framed positively (as a story game) or negatively (as pure immersion-breaking metagame mechanics). In my view, that different territory is interesting for other games, but inappropriate for D&amp;D.Well, I've seen worse ideas, but yes I think that is a very bad one.It's good that you're DMing that way, but this statement does undermine your idea that the DM isn't in control.I don't think fighters are all that hard to play interestingly. Often spellcasters are more gimmicky and harder to connect with or understand. I do think it requires more imagination to play a fighter, and I do think there is some room to give fighters better abilities without treading into &quot;plot coupon&quot; territory.I say that the idea that spellcasters have more narrative control is mostly an illusion, and that there are decent storygames out there, but D&amp;D is not one of them, and that someone needs to pick up the D&amp;D line of mechanics that ended with 3.5 and continue evolving it, because it isn't broken.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6152257, member: 17106"] I see that perspective. However, I find it hard to imagine that a DM could ever be only a referee. He is responsible for everything outside of the PCs, and whatever world he chooses to play in and whatever game he chooses to run, I don't see a truly laissez faire DM. A true referee doesn't decide when the rules are worthwhile to employ and when not (whereas "handwaving" is de rigeur in D&D). Nor does he change the rules as he goes (which is part and parcel of DMing). On a more philosophical level, the DM largely decides the tone of the game. To me, the distinguishing aspect of D&D is that the DM has essentially 99% control, and the players only control the 1% things that their characters control. And indeed, that's what makes it a true "role playing game", and that 1% is enough to make it so that no one person is driving the bus and the results of the game are unpredictable. Giving players power outside of their characters' knowledge and abilities takes you into different territory, which can either be framed positively (as a story game) or negatively (as pure immersion-breaking metagame mechanics). In my view, that different territory is interesting for other games, but inappropriate for D&D. Well, I've seen worse ideas, but yes I think that is a very bad one. It's good that you're DMing that way, but this statement does undermine your idea that the DM isn't in control. I don't think fighters are all that hard to play interestingly. Often spellcasters are more gimmicky and harder to connect with or understand. I do think it requires more imagination to play a fighter, and I do think there is some room to give fighters better abilities without treading into "plot coupon" territory. I say that the idea that spellcasters have more narrative control is mostly an illusion, and that there are decent storygames out there, but D&D is not one of them, and that someone needs to pick up the D&D line of mechanics that ended with 3.5 and continue evolving it, because it isn't broken. [/QUOTE]

Verification