NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9293352" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Do not force a false dichotomy here. The world is not comprised solely of "absolutely wonderful DMs" and "just dirt worst DMs." There's a spectrum, and it turns out that an awful lot of DMs are just...mediocre. Not great, without somehow lacking moral fiber: well-meaning but inept or bumbling; brilliant writers, but terrible designers; absolute beasts at combat design, but incapable of keeping lore consistent from one session to the next; awesome planners, but terrible improvisers; friendly and approachable, but far too fickle (again, not a moral failing, just too easily led by whim or presentation); etc., etc. There is no end to the possible ways someone can be a mixed-bag DM or a just-kinda-okay DM or a great-except-for-one-Persian-flaw or whatever else.We neither need nor want rules to "save" us from bad-faith DMing; in all likelihood, no such rules exist. But it is useful to have rules which steer all of the above DMs—imperfect, erring, human—away from preventable mistakes and errors. And guess what? Rules are really good for that exact thing. They don't help keep any man, honest or dishonest, stuck to honesty; they help keep imperfect men away from easy mistakes, or, in the best cases, help guide those men to even greater success.So don't make this a false dichotomy, where we must choose between no rules at all so as to not hobble anyone, or draconian and likely useless rules with the false premise of making good men out of bad. Recognize that this comes from a desire to make effective DMs out of imperfect ones—something that, when undertaken with moderation and care, is good for everyone.What if it isn't a matter of trust, but a matter of recognizing human flaws? Of knowing that humans all too easily fall to bias and error, particularly when it comes to difficult things like statistics, or perverse incentives, or accidental degenerate solutions?Forget about protection then. You should most certainly know by now that lots of people absolutely don't make "logical, sound, reasonable decisions," not out of moral failings, but because people are not logic engines. We do foolish things for strange reasons. We fail to properly communicate all the damn time. We allow emotion, or bias, or false beliefs, or any of a million other things to cloud our reasoning and preclude doing the things that would be most beneficial for us or others or both.Would you then say you have never ever had a merely flawed DM? A merely mediocre one? One that could have incredible skill in one aspect of DMing but be, charitably, not the best in other areas?Because if you've never had a DM with even a single flaw, then yes, I would absolutely call you insanely lucky.And what of systems which do not do that, but instead enhance their agency?Have you established that every rule necessarily destroys DM agency? Is it not possible that some, being useful tools rather than albatrosses around the neck, actually help the DM do more than they could achieve on their own?Yeah, sorry, this is a textbook slippery slope argument and is exactly as weak as you say. It may be harsh, but your illustration of the feeling would have been far better served with something not so...well. Flawed. Emotional. Driven by things other than being "logical, sound, [and] reasonable." Which seems like a good way of showing how a person can be pushed toward things they themselves recognize as non-logical.Rules—good ones, well-made, showing restraint in where and how they are made and used—help us to fight back against human imperfections such as these. They'll never make such imperfections go away. Nothing will. But the fact you cannot make a problem 100% go away is not a reason to choose to do nothing about it.</blockquote>

Verification