Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9245052" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yep. I have seen this too, not from every DM but from some of them. Sometimes it is a desire to force failure without appearing to force it. Most of the time, however, I think it's just a lack of skill, and being bad at translating &quot;challenging but achievable&quot; into iterated probability.It's one of the (many) reasons why I think rules should be designed, not for bad DMs, not even for good DMs, but for mediocre DMs and subpar but well-meaning DMs.Because bad rules can hardly hold back a great DM, and good rules can't fix a crappy DM. But good rules can really help a mediocre DM a lot, and can help a subpar but well-meaning DM learn to become a better one.Not at all.Having a deity constantly watching your every move and pulling the plug the instant you slip up is not, in any way, an inherent or required element here. You can--and should--design for a wider berth. Investiture isn't a requirement, and you were extremely skeptical of it when you thought it was. Why are your preferred limitations somehow the necessary, critical element keeping the game high-quality, where their removal has ruined the game, but others' preferred limitations an unacceptable impediment preventing interesting stories or limiting the DM from portraying the kind of world they want to portray?Simply put, you haven't even tried to respond to the charge of double standards here. What makes your drawbacks a wonderful and essential building block of the game, foolishly cast aside by designers at the request of immature and ignorant players, but a different slate of drawbacks would be an unacceptable intrusion into DM authority and player freedom? It would seem to me you can't have it both ways.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9245052, member: 6790260"] Yep. I have seen this too, not from every DM but from some of them. Sometimes it is a desire to force failure without appearing to force it. Most of the time, however, I think it's just a lack of skill, and being bad at translating "challenging but achievable" into iterated probability. It's one of the (many) reasons why I think rules should be designed, not for bad DMs, not even for good DMs, but for [I]mediocre[/I] DMs and [I]subpar but well-meaning[/I] DMs. Because bad rules can hardly hold back a great DM, and good rules can't fix a crappy DM. But good rules can really help a mediocre DM a lot, and can help a subpar but well-meaning DM learn to become a better one. Not at all. Having a deity constantly watching your every move and pulling the plug the instant you slip up is not, in any way, an inherent or required element here. You can--and should--design for a wider berth. Investiture isn't a requirement, and you were extremely skeptical of it when you thought it was. Why are [I]your[/I] preferred limitations somehow the necessary, critical element keeping the game high-quality, where their removal has ruined the game, but [I]others'[/I] preferred limitations an unacceptable impediment preventing interesting stories or limiting the DM from portraying the kind of world they want to portray? Simply put, you haven't even tried to respond to the charge of double standards here. What makes [I]your[/I] drawbacks a wonderful and essential building block of the game, foolishly cast aside by designers at the request of immature and ignorant players, but a different slate of drawbacks would be an unacceptable intrusion into DM authority and player freedom? It would seem to me you can't have it both ways. [/QUOTE]

Verification