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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8495963" data-attributes="member: 59082">I don't really understand this association of RAW and old school, or "the dice fall where they may" with OSR (and grognards). The RAW phenomena seems more...middle school? Arising mainly during later TSR days and/or early WotC (3E). It seems aligned with an "anti-railroad" movement, and player empowerment, no matter the cost to the narrative.I mean, I get that people look back at olden tymes and think Tomb of Horrors. But that was one module, designed for a specific effect. It didn't represent all D&D played in the 70s and 80s. Having grown up in the 80s, we always played fast and loose, and DMs were always empowered to keep things behind the screen.The key was preserving the illusion that dice always determined outcomes. And, for the most part (like 95-99%) of the time, they did. But there were occasions that DMs (including myself) fudged or ignored dice. It is quite simple, actually: the DM's judgment trumps random chance. Rule zero, and all that.But what about abusive DMs? Well, that's a different problem. That sort of person is going to find a way to be abusive, no matter what. RAW can't protect players from a maleficent DM who, if they really want to, can kill off a party at any time.And what about railroading? Again, different problem. I can see how frequent dice-fudging can lead to railroading, but let's be honest: it isn't railroading if the player's don't realize they're being railroaded. I'm not saying that DM's should control the narrative towards whatever outcome they ultimately desire, but I am saying that there's absolutely nothing wrong with nudging things along, and again, as long as the players feel like they have choice, that's all that really matters to the actual play experience. And as long as the DM feels good about what they're doing, then its all good.Now some DMs might be "chance purists" and detest fudging. That's fine, too. But that's their own choice and there's no need to advocate that as the "right way to do things" (aka One True Wayism). I mean, it is sort of like washing your hands every time you come inside. Fine if you want to do it, but no reason to criticize others for not caring. They may simply have other priorities like, I dunno, optimizing enjoyment for everyone at the table?And that's the bottom line: the DM orchestrates the game table, and thus is the person most responsible for the enjoyment of all. They're not the only one responsible, but they certain have the largest share of responsibility. A DM should always have this question in the back of their mind, imo: What is the most enjoyable outcome? That isn't always, "You find a vorpal sword." Generally delayed gratification leads to greater overall enjoyment, which is why Monty Hallism tends to lead to diminished enjoyment (that is, less is more - but too little can also be bland). Nor is it always, "You win!" Sometimes loss and failure lead to greater enjoyment. I mean, there are always hills and valleys and the hills don't stand out unless there are valleys.</blockquote>

Verification