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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 7138117" data-attributes="member: 2656">agreedI would disagree slightly here. IMO the gameworld only 100% belongs to the referee when it remains his or her private creation. As soon as it's shared with players the DM has limited control over the reactions and interpretations of the players about the world and they may not, and often do not match up with the DM's. If a worldbuilder wants to retain absolute and total control of a world they be better off not showing it to others unless they are open to comment and criticism (which ideally would be constructive criticism, but people being people this sometimes is not the case).As soon as the gameworld is shared with players, even when the DM retains total editorial control, the reactions and interpretations of the players witnessing the world will inevitably have an effect on the portrayal of the world. If the players develop an immediate visceral dislike of a nation or organisation that the DM likes, for instance,(something I've seen in games before) it challenges the DM to be impartial and perhaps reassess his or her portrayal of that element of the setting. It can be tough when logical fallacies and unintended/unfortunate analogies are exposed by the players and surprise the creator.Each game group has to evolve ways to handle such differences of interpretation, whether they are ignored by the DM or acknowledged. Depending on DM tastes and tolerances, sometimes it may be necessary to lay down the law, and declare objectively ex cathedra that the players are just plain wrong in certain interpretations. This can be the right thing to do for the DM's enjoyment of the game, but there is no guarantee such declarations will work fully or in part. The opinions of the players are still their own, and it can be very difficult to change them.</blockquote>

Verification