Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tyberious Funk" data-source="post: 623311" data-attributes="member: 9550">Ok, I admit I'm a bit of a socialist DM, but I prefer to think of it as OUR game.&nbsp; I don't want unhappy players, and they don't want an unhappy DM... so somewhere in between, we can work things out without resorting to people leaving the group (unless, of course, the ideological differences are simply irreconcilable).I play in one game where the DM rules absolutely.&nbsp; He proclaims the game world as &quot;his&quot; world and talks about the things he allows in &quot;his&quot; game.&nbsp; It is the sort of DM I'm used to, so I take him with a grain of salt.&nbsp; Besides, he's been building his homebrew game world for maybe 15 years.I play/DM another game where we tend to be more democratic.&nbsp; We chat about the sort of game we would like to play and then lay down some informal guidelines.&nbsp; Someone usually agrees to take on board the DMing duties, although there is often at least one other potential alternate DM.&nbsp; The game world is often grown collaboratively, with input and ideas from everybody.&nbsp; The question of PrCs or other optional Feats/Skills/Spells etc is often moot because collectively we all understand what our game intentions were when we started.&nbsp; &quot;No, you can't play a gnomish barbarian - remember we agreed no gnomes in this world.&quot;As a DM, this has sometimes forced me to make some compromises that I would have prefered not to make.&nbsp; It can be particularly difficult if I start a campaign and then hand over DMing duties to someone else who has a slightly different perception on the game 'flavour'.&nbsp; But then I realise I'm being silly... it is usually only a minor perceptual difference.Don't get me wrong - both games can be fun.&nbsp; But in the latter instance, everybody plays the game they want (or at least, the game they wanted at the time).&nbsp; In the former, only the DM is playing the game he wants... the rest of us are playing a game we enjoy, but don't *totally* agree with.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tyberious Funk, post: 623311, member: 9550"] Ok, I admit I'm a bit of a socialist DM, but I prefer to think of it as OUR game. I don't want unhappy players, and they don't want an unhappy DM... so somewhere in between, we can work things out without resorting to people leaving the group (unless, of course, the ideological differences are simply irreconcilable). I play in one game where the DM rules absolutely. He proclaims the game world as "his" world and talks about the things he allows in "his" game. It is the sort of DM I'm used to, so I take him with a grain of salt. Besides, he's been building his homebrew game world for maybe 15 years. I play/DM another game where we tend to be more democratic. We chat about the sort of game we would like to play and then lay down some informal guidelines. Someone usually agrees to take on board the DMing duties, although there is often at least one other potential alternate DM. The game world is often grown collaboratively, with input and ideas from everybody. The question of PrCs or other optional Feats/Skills/Spells etc is often moot because collectively we all understand what our game intentions were when we started. "No, you can't play a gnomish barbarian - remember we agreed no gnomes in this world." As a DM, this has sometimes forced me to make some compromises that I would have prefered not to make. It can be particularly difficult if I start a campaign and then hand over DMing duties to someone else who has a slightly different perception on the game 'flavour'. But then I realise I'm being silly... it is usually only a minor perceptual difference. Don't get me wrong - both games can be fun. But in the latter instance, everybody plays the game they want (or at least, the game they wanted at the time). In the former, only the DM is playing the game he wants... the rest of us are playing a game we enjoy, but don't *totally* agree with. [/QUOTE]

Verification