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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8427087" data-attributes="member: 16814">I find this confusing.  Why cannot the damage of eldritch blast be settled by consensus?  What is there fuzzy about what an illusion spell does? The nature of this argument seems to be that since the GM is granted the ability to change rules, that therefore the GM should be deferred to at all times and that the best resolution method is just to trust the GM in this.  The problem is that this doesn't follow -- the GM is granted leave to alter rules, but only in pursuit of a better game for the table; a conversation that should include the table if it's going to be in good faith.  When the rules of the game are unavailable, so to is the rule that the GM is in charge.  You cannot logically state that missing rules means that the GM position -- defined by rules -- deserves full deference and trust.  Why cannot the GM trust the player instead?When I play 5e, it do it from the textbook position -- the GM has almost all of the authority in the game.  I do this because the game is designed to work under this assumption, and I've found that at my table this works out.  I also very rarely make changes to the rules of the game as written, and then I am 100% transparent about the change and 99% of the time seek consensus on the change.  That's me, and I mention it because I have no problem with GM authority as presented in 5e.  I am not challenging your post on the basis that I disagree with, or dislike strong GM authority.  I am challenging your post because I find the reasoning provided for why GMs must have deference to not hold up very well.  Essentially, I see it as trying to justify out of game responses (you must trust the GM to use their authority wisely) with in game reasons (because the GM is granted authority to change rules).  The former does not follow from the latter.  I also do not think that this creates a better game -- as I note, I tend to seek table consensus for any changes because I view my authority to change rules in 5e to be entirely based on making the game work better at the table, for the table, and me being the GM doesn't provide any extra or special insight to that process over a player.  Just because I've agreed to be the GM doesn't mean I'm wiser, more knowledgeable, or am better able to make choices to the point that player input is unnecessary.</blockquote>

Verification