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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8622324" data-attributes="member: 7032025">The fact is that players are not equal, which is why it's good to have a DM so that he can arbitrate for fun. This is also why player-centricity as injected by 3e was wrong, not only did it take the necessary "authority" of the DM away (I'm using brackets there, because, as it's only a game, a DM only has as much authority as the collective players give him, but that's exactly what he needs to manage imbalances at that level), it was also every technical and encouraged power drifts in characters.Hmmm, as I don't think that I've seen a definition of narrativism that supports that anyway.Of course, it's down to the group. I should add stress that this is from my perspective, but if people want to play in a more gamist fashion, balance becomes more important, for reasons of fairness, although, once more, this is at least partly a fallacy for all the other reasons that I have listed. For example, if two characters are perfectly balanced but not equal, it still means that some situations will favor one over the over, so if the DM mostly presents situations favouring a character, then that one will get an obvious advantage. The same if a magic item is found favouring one character. And the same if a player is clearly a better tactician than the other.Not really, some people play D&D in a very gamist fashion, and there is nothing wrong with that. I wanted to present a different view to show that inherently the game is not written that way, especially 5e if I may, and for me that is clearly something that contributed to its wider appeal than the hardcore fans of previous editions.</blockquote>

Verification