Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6306715" data-attributes="member: 17106">I know that. I'm not contesting that. What I'm trying to do is draw a distinction between the system and the operator.There may indeed be megalomaniacal DMs, and they may cite text as an excuse, but they'd be wrong to do so. There's plenty of other text in any DMG about not being a douche. The existence of DMs who abuse the game does not invalidate it, any more than the existence of police corruption invalidates the rule of law. The books are written with the assumption that the people using them will be reasonable, regardless of how true you or I think that is in practice.It is subjective. It is also adding a value judgement that in my view is inappropriate.And yet, that's exactly what we're discussing. Someone proposes enchanting a royal agent, I set forth a reasonable consequence for such an act (probably ending the PC's career), and I get accused of depriving the players of something.I wouldn't suggest that a DM should enforce unreasonable consequences to railroad the players, but merely that adding in reasonable ones creates a different set of choices for the players than the kind of laissez faire attitude apparently being promulgated. And that the reasonable ones are really the purview of the DM; the rules themselves are helpful but not sufficient.No kidding. I don't dispute that at all. I simply state that I think that someone who behaves poorly is unfit to be a DM. I don't think they'd be any more fit to adopt an intermediate role like an indie game might propose.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6306715, member: 17106"] I know that. I'm not contesting that. What I'm trying to do is draw a distinction between the system and the operator. There may indeed be megalomaniacal DMs, and they may cite text as an excuse, but they'd be wrong to do so. There's plenty of other text in any DMG about not being a douche. The existence of DMs who abuse the game does not invalidate it, any more than the existence of police corruption invalidates the rule of law. The books are written with the assumption that the people using them will be reasonable, regardless of how true you or I think that is in practice. It is subjective. It is also adding a value judgement that in my view is inappropriate. And yet, that's exactly what we're discussing. Someone proposes enchanting a royal agent, I set forth a reasonable consequence for such an act (probably ending the PC's career), and I get accused of depriving the players of something. I wouldn't suggest that a DM should enforce [I]un[/I]reasonable consequences to railroad the players, but merely that adding in reasonable ones creates a different set of choices for the players than the kind of laissez faire attitude apparently being promulgated. And that the reasonable ones are really the purview of the DM; the rules themselves are helpful but not sufficient. No kidding. I don't dispute that at all. I simply state that I think that someone who behaves poorly is unfit to be a DM. I don't think they'd be any more fit to adopt an intermediate role like an indie game might propose. [/QUOTE]

Verification