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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 9293754" data-attributes="member: 7006">You make a lot of good points, and yes, my post was a reaction to many of the posts that gave me the impression that a lot of issues people had was just because of "bad DMs" and not just DMs having flaws to try to sand the edges off of.  Obviously there is middle ground here as there is with everything.  But when it comes to posts here on the boards by almost all of us, they more often than not give a more extreme impression than probably what any of us really feel, as that is the best way to make sure our points get across.  Oftentimes when folks post more middle-of-the-road opinions their actual point gets lost because the examples do not highlight the point.So yeah... my post leaned into the "bad DMs" thing because while it is the further end of the spectrum... the actual intention behind it still applies.  Because even if a DM isn't "bad" per se, there still is (in your words) "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."  But I for one don't think that's still at all necessary to try and amiliorate that with just more rules to cover for them.  If even if DMs are just merely mediocre... I'd rather see them just keep working to get better, rather than mask their inadequacies by throwing more rules at the problem.You say that it's not about trust... but what else would you call it if you as a player are not willing to let your DMs fumble about and learn by doing and instead want them to instantly "get better" by putting in a mechanical system?  I suppose if it's not trust, then my next thought would be "impatience".  People have limited time to play and they aren't willing to deal with a mediocre DM who has flaws and biases, so they want game rules to cover for them.  That way they can get the experience they want right away.Again... that's fine if that's the case.  Everyone wants what they want for whatever their reasons... and usually there is someone or something there and available to take care of their needs.  So if some folks want more rules of any sort and less "DM fiat"-- which is basically another way of saying "less 'Rulings, Not Rules'"-- they can probably find something out there that works for them.  I just don't personally see WotC leaning in that direction with 5E, because "Rulings, Not Rules" has been one of the signposts of the edition and thus anything that removes the DM from any decision-making process seems to be very carefully adjudicated.  If it's creating a new rule or just letting the DM make a choice... the latter seems more often to be the one that the game goes with.</blockquote>

Verification