Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 3451082" data-attributes="member: 48965">I totally agree with #1 as long as that includes the GM as well.#2 IMHO enabling players isn't necessarily making the story about them.&nbsp; I think if a GM is going by the book, he's not ruling against the PC's, he's being impartial.&nbsp; I also believe the word no has to be used sometimes.&nbsp; &nbsp;If we as a group come to&nbsp; social contract before playing a game that we are playing type X(where X can be a genre,time period, etc.) and&nbsp; a player at character creation decides it would be fun to play a type Y character I feel I'm in my rights to say no.EX.DM: I want to run a game based of the renaisance period w/ a smattering of clockwork tech and magic mixed in.Players A,B &amp;C: Sounds cool ok.Player A: I think I'll play something like a duelist/disowned noblePlayer B: I was thinking about a SCientist dabller, using the artificer class from EberronPlayer C: I'm going to&nbsp; play a kung-fu wuxia master from a ninja clan...What, why are you guys looking at me like that?DM: SMACK!! No.This sounds like being arbitrary and a little railroady.&nbsp; So you empower the players, but then you decide on rules questions, not by what you feel is a fair or consistent ruling, but by what YOU think is the best way to progress the story.&nbsp; Hmm. I don't really know if that's empowerment or a really good illusion of it.Ok, so above you'll arbitrarily make rules decisions, but here you let the dice fall where they may.&nbsp; How do you decide at what point to do which?&nbsp; If the story would be &quot;cooler&quot; by the fight lasting a little longer would you fudge it?I will argue Devil's Advocate here, because I've seen players who will totally own a DM who doesn't restrict them to a certain point.&nbsp; They can do that because they aren't trying to run a whole world, all they have to worry about is their one character.&nbsp; I think a well prepared DM is going to know what he has the capacity to handle and restrict his game accordingly.&nbsp; I personally feel every player should spend some time in the DM seat, I think it gives them a better perspective on the game as a whole insteaad of just their piece of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 3451082, member: 48965"] I totally agree with #1 as long as that includes the GM as well. #2 IMHO enabling players isn't necessarily making the story about them. I think if a GM is going by the book, he's not ruling against the PC's, he's being impartial. I also believe the word no has to be used sometimes. If we as a group come to social contract before playing a game that we are playing type X(where X can be a genre,time period, etc.) and a player at character creation decides it would be fun to play a type Y character I feel I'm in my rights to say no. EX. DM: I want to run a game based of the renaisance period w/ a smattering of clockwork tech and magic mixed in. Players A,B &C: Sounds cool ok. Player A: I think I'll play something like a duelist/disowned noble Player B: I was thinking about a SCientist dabller, using the artificer class from Eberron Player C: I'm going to play a kung-fu wuxia master from a ninja clan...What, why are you guys looking at me like that? DM: SMACK!! No. This sounds like being arbitrary and a little railroady. So you empower the players, but then you decide on rules questions, not by what you feel is a fair or consistent ruling, but by what YOU think is the best way to progress the story. Hmm. I don't really know if that's empowerment or a really good illusion of it. Ok, so above you'll arbitrarily make rules decisions, but here you let the dice fall where they may. How do you decide at what point to do which? If the story would be "cooler" by the fight lasting a little longer would you fudge it? I will argue Devil's Advocate here, because I've seen players who will totally own a DM who doesn't restrict them to a certain point. They can do that because they aren't trying to run a whole world, all they have to worry about is their one character. I think a well prepared DM is going to know what he has the capacity to handle and restrict his game accordingly. I personally feel every player should spend some time in the DM seat, I think it gives them a better perspective on the game as a whole insteaad of just their piece of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification